PDA

View Full Version : Better #1 scorer: Reggie Miller, or Danny Granger?



Hicks
02-16-2010, 05:10 PM
After you vote, please explain your answer.

vapacersfan
02-16-2010, 05:13 PM
I wish I would have the chance to follow the current Pacers more often.

Just from what I read, I think I like Reggie better then I do Danny.

With that said, Reggie really "broke out" if you will and became a star after a couple of years in the league.

I hate to ask a question to answer a question, but how has Danny been at creating his own shot? This was one thing that always killed me about Reggie, and although he got better he really was a guy who relied on good screens to get shots off.

Sookie
02-16-2010, 05:14 PM
It's not fair to vote yet, Danny hasn't had his career. I think Danny's got the potential to be better, because although he probably won't be a better 3 point shooter, he's got the potential to be more versitale...

Hicks
02-16-2010, 05:16 PM
The question is based on what you know now, not what you project. If that helps.

mildlysane
02-16-2010, 05:19 PM
It isn't even close. Reggie was more than 3's. He was kick your leg out and get an extra throw good. He had ice water in his veins and always took the last shot; and was never afraid to miss it. He could hit from anywhere on the court. Maybe one day...

vapacersfan
02-16-2010, 05:23 PM
It isn't even close. Reggie was more than 3's. He was kick your leg out and get an extra throw good. He had ice water in his veins and always took the last shot; and was never afraid to miss it. He could hit from anywhere on the court. Maybe one day...

Just to be captain obvious here: You can be a great clutch player without being a big time scorer (see Robery Horry)

Lance George
02-16-2010, 05:25 PM
Danny's already bested Reggie's career-best PPG (24.6) last season (25.8) and his PPG this year, while down, is still better than all but two of Reggie's seasons. Reggie shot the better percentages, but wings as a whole have shot worse in modern times, so it's logical to conclude that rule changes have played a significant part.

Overall, I'd say they're roughly equal, although I think sentimentalism will sway most people towards Reggie.

PaceBalls
02-16-2010, 05:31 PM
Reggie played a different, and IMO better game than Danny. He ran his man ragged throughout the game, running him into numerous screens time after time. He may not have been the best defender, but his man was so tired after chasing him and bouncing off of a Davis or two, that they usually had crappy nights. Reggie played a team game. Danny plays a get me the ball so I can chuck a three game.

Also, I don't think Danny should be a #1 scoring option. He is #1 on our team because we don't have anyone else who could be... *praying hard for Kevin Martin*

Peck
02-16-2010, 05:38 PM
Danny can score in ways that Reggie would not. Notice I didn't say he couldn't but that he wouldn't.

Obviously though Reggie never played for a coach who's philosophy was as soon as you see the rim you can shoot it, so maybe Danny's scoring is artificially inflated both this and last season.

But before Danny became infatuated with shooting three point shots this season he had pretty much a very good overall rounded game, including the ability to post up a player. Reggie never had that.

Now Reggie in most playoff series was a differant story but not always. However Danny has not yet proven himself in the playoffs.

So we will have to see in a few years.

But for now I will give the slight edge to Danny.

PaceBalls
02-16-2010, 05:41 PM
Danny can score in ways that Reggie would not. Notice I didn't say he couldn't but that he wouldn't.

Obviously though Reggie never played for a coach who's philosophy was as soon as you see the rim you can shoot it, so maybe Danny's scoring is artificially inflated both this and last season.

But before Danny became infatuated with shooting three point shots this season he had pretty much a very good overall rounded game, including the ability to post up a player. Reggie never had that.

Now Reggie in most playoff series was a differant story but not always. However Danny has not yet proven himself in the playoffs.

So we will have to see in a few years.

But for now I will give the slight edge to Danny.

You make a good point, maybe my dislike of Danny's game is a direct result of the coaching and gameplan Jim implements.

I wonder how good Danny would be under Larry Brown or Rick C. as the #1 option.

PacerDude
02-16-2010, 05:56 PM
If I may sort of quote old #31 .......... it's not how many you make, it's when you make 'em.

Infinite MAN_force
02-16-2010, 06:00 PM
Not really a fair comparison to make at this point in time. If I was projecting, I would say their overall impact will be about the same. I would give Reggie the scoring edge because of better effieciency, but Danny brings more on the defensive end.

If the question is "Can Danny play the role of the "Reggie Miller" on a team constructed in similar fashion to the 90s Pacer teams, being the best player on a team with a bunch of really good players who play team basketball as opposed to a team built around one or two "superstars" + role players... I think yes.

BlueNGold
02-16-2010, 06:18 PM
Reggie could get open and was most effective when the chips were down...when the competition was significantly higher than the regular season. You need that to win close games...when it's very hard to score. I want my #1 option to be able to score when needed...and improve in the playoffs over the regular season. I have no proof that Granger can do that, so the gap remains wide.

odeez
02-16-2010, 06:26 PM
Yes, not a fair question yet. Reggie was certainly clutch in his career.

PacerDude
02-16-2010, 06:29 PM
............. but Danny brings more on the defensive end. Yet another often said line ............ which I simply don't see. And not just comparing him to Reg (who played better D than most think - ask Jordan) - just in general.

But we're talking scoring - not D. To which Reg gets the nod also.

Young
02-16-2010, 06:38 PM
Right now it's Reggie, IMO. I guess it depends on what you like to see in a go to scorer.

Reggie was a well rounded scorer. He wasn't a traditional go to scorer in that he didn't create his own shot with the ball in his hands. He created his own shot by moving without the ball.

Danny has the potential to do a little bit of everything and do some things better than Reggie. I can't give him the edge because he hasn't done it for a good team and until then Reggie gets the edge. Even when/if Danny does it on a good team (i'd say at least make the Conference Finals) you could still give the edge to Reggie. Reggie was great just in a different way.

BlueNGold
02-16-2010, 06:50 PM
I like Danny, but he's not as good of an offensive weapon. It is still early, but he's going to be 27 this April and...as we know...this has not been a year of improvement for him. If this is the best it gets, it's not close.

Even if he gets better, here are some hurdles he will need to overcome:

Grangers FG% and 3 FG% are both lower than Reggie's. Reggie is also much better at the line. He also has a higher career scoring average on less attempts from the floor. ...to go with him being a better clutch player so far. Yes, so far, but I'd put my money on Reggie. I don't see significant improvement coming from Granger here on out.

I think we all need to take a breath and realize how special Reggie Miller was....

DaveP63
02-16-2010, 06:54 PM
No question in my mind at all, now or ever. #31

vnzla81
02-16-2010, 07:01 PM
pure shooter Reggie, more ways to create his own shot Danny

pacers_heath
02-16-2010, 07:25 PM
Reggie Miller is HIGHLY overrated. He got very glorified around his retirement time and suddenly everyone was calling him "one of the greatest," but nobody ever considered him great while he was actually playing.

Reggie was a great shooter, great in the clutch, good leader, and a decent passer. However he was very one dimensional on offense and couldn't really do a whole lot other than jump shots. He was also a poor defender and rebounder. Reggie had career averages of 18/3/3. I'd say Danny will have career averages of more like 22/6/3.

Danny has Reggie beat in talent easily. He's a much better defender and rebounder, more versitaile on offense, and almost as good of a shooter. Reggie has him beat in leadership and clutch ability (although Danny has shown to be clutch at times), and has him easily beat on the killer instinct scale.

Overall, Granger is the talent and Reggie is the leader. As much as I like Reggie, I'd have to give the slight edge to Granger.

Slick Pinkham
02-16-2010, 07:40 PM
While Danny can score in more ways, I just don't see the "Oh my God how are we going to stop him" look on opponents faces that you saw with Reggie, armed only with a jump shot. Especially in the playoffs, where we don't have much info on Danny.

PacerDude
02-16-2010, 07:47 PM
Reggie was a great shooter, great in the clutch, good leader, and a decent passer. However he was very one dimensional on offense and couldn't really do a whole lot other than jump shots. He was also a poor defender and rebounder.Ignoring the fact that they play different positions and that SGs really aren't asked to rebound that much, to say that all Reg had was a jump shot is just wrong.

And would someone please explain to me the infatuation of Granger being a defender ??

pwee31
02-16-2010, 08:09 PM
Reggie really never averaged too much, but you could argue he played on better teams. He or his teammates worked to get him open a lot more, and frankly he took good shots.

I think Granger has or could have a better array of moves, but he forces a lot of things, and doesn't seem to have the leadership or killer instinct the #1 scorer needs.

Last year Granger looked like an all-star, this year he looks like a chucker on a bad team

Putnam
02-16-2010, 08:22 PM
Reggie Miller is HIGHLY overrated. He got very glorified around his retirement time and suddenly everyone was calling him "one of the greatest," but nobody ever considered him great while he was actually playing.


You don't get it.

Reggie was skinny and gawky. The guy from the other team who was guarding him night after night looked like (and was) a better athlete. If Jordan's most prominent feature was his hangtime, Reggie's most prominent feature was his ears.

But Reggie got the job done. Those desperate, last-second, catch-and-shoot bombs were achievements of pure heart. Great didn't have anything to do with it. Reggie was a guy Hoosiers could root for.

I couldn't care less whether the rest of the country considers him great.

d_c
02-16-2010, 08:25 PM
But Reggie got the job done. Those desperate, last-second, catch-and-shoot bombs were achievements of pure heart. Great didn't have anything to do with it. Reggie was a guy Hoosiers could root for.

Also achievements from spending a career of knowing how to pace himself and keeping himself fresh/healthy for the postseason.

Ozwalt72
02-16-2010, 08:51 PM
Yet another often said line ............ which I simply don't see. And not just comparing him to Reg (who played better D than most think - ask Jordan) - just in general.

But we're talking scoring - not D. To which Reg gets the nod also.

I think part of the reason Reggie was at least passable on D is that the gameplan had him going off so many screens....it wore the defender out if he tried to hard.

1984
02-16-2010, 09:23 PM
Danny certainly has many quality years left; however, to this point he has not eclipsed Reggie as a scorer. [1] Reggie was Mr. Efficiency because he could score with few shots because of his ability to get to the foul line and sharp shooting. Danny must get to the foul line more. [2] Reggie scored when it mattered most, particularly in the playoffs. There are many players who have averaged 19+ points per game, but few of them influenced a game like Reggie Miller.

Check out Reggie's playoff stats: http://www.nba.com/playerfile/reggie_miller/career_stats.html

Cheers.

P.S., Do you guys remember Reggie's running floater?

ksuttonjr76
02-16-2010, 09:43 PM
Hard to judge Granger in this "Chuck 3's only" offense. On the real, Reggie took very high quality shoots due to his ability to move without the ball through multiple screens. If Reggie can average roughly 21 PPG during the 90's (IMHO, his best years), then Granger could have averaged 35 PPG. I think Granger is capable so much better offensive production.

Kid Minneapolis
02-16-2010, 10:08 PM
Danny is a more consistent scorer throughout the game. However, Reggie, while still a good scorer, is absolutely the better "go-to" scorer down the stretch or when they need a big bucket or need to get to the line.

So my vote is.... Danny in first 3 quarters, and Reggie in the 4th. Man, woulda been fun to see 'em play together.

d_c
02-16-2010, 10:53 PM
If Reggie can average roughly 21 PPG during the 90's (IMHO, his best years), then Granger could have averaged 35 PPG. I think Granger is capable so much better offensive production.

May as well just bust out the Granger/Michael Jordan comparisons.

Major Cold
02-16-2010, 11:23 PM
This is not who is the best all-around scorer poll. It is the best, period. And until Danny scores in the playoffs like he did last year, he is seriously behind Reggie.

Hicks
02-16-2010, 11:24 PM
This is not who is the best all-around scorer poll. It is the best, period.


Actually, no, it IS about who is the best scorer, not overall player. Specifically with regards to either being the #1 option on offense for a team.

Los Angeles
02-16-2010, 11:26 PM
Completely wrong year to ask.

Major Cold
02-16-2010, 11:30 PM
Actually, no, it IS about who is the best scorer, not overall player. Specifically with regards to either being the #1 option on offense for a team.


Reggie was a great scorer in the clutch, in the playoffs that it was and still is more superior. I take Reggie's clutch scoring when it counts over Danny's all around scoring threat. So the best scorer is when it counts the most. Not when you are on a lottery team. Sure Reggie had a better team, but as it stands now it is not even close.

By best period I meant best scorer period, as opposed to better all-around scorer.

Reggie's best is daggers in the playoffs. Danny's best is a West coast road trip that ultimately did not get them in the playoffs (see Suns game and following).

ksuttonjr76
02-17-2010, 12:05 AM
May as well just bust out the Granger/Michael Jordan comparisons.

Typo...I meant 25 PPG.

d_c
02-17-2010, 01:43 AM
Typo...I meant 25 PPG.

FWIW, the 90s era in which Reggie played most of his prime in was a very difficult era to score in. Scoring was down league wide. More and more long/athletic guys started to roam the perimeter defensively and alter shots and overall play was more physical.

Fans started to get turned off by the low scoring games. That's what prompted all the rule changes, in particular the handchecking rules, and that's what's really increased the scoring this decade. You simply can't be as physical on defense now as back in the 90s. You'd foul out of the game if you tried. Mark Jackson wouldn't have gotten mauled by Scottie Pippen under the current rules.

Pacersfan46
02-17-2010, 01:48 AM
As dc said, Reggie paced himself a lot. He didn't force things. It's shows in his shooting percentages. Guards shooting 50% from the field at any point in their career is usually a guy who gets to the rim a lot (Jordan, all the way to Monta Ellis). Reggie did it while being primarily a jump shooter.

He did it because he rarely took anything that was a bad shot for him. He never forced it. Danny forces it sometimes, and maybe that's the offense and coach, but it still bothers me. Reggie also played at a time where defense was at a premium. Games were slower. The Pacers played at a pretty slow pace.

Either way, I truly believe if Reggie had wanted to force the issue he could have scored more points. I just think he understood when it was worth forcing the issue to get the ball, and when he needed to conserve his energy. Very important over a long season.

-- Steve --

Dece
02-17-2010, 03:31 AM
Reggie, and it isn't particularly close.

Reggie was so much more efficient against so much tougher defenses. You give Reg as many shots per game as Danny takes against these softer defenses and we might actually look like a playoff team.

cgg
02-17-2010, 06:56 AM
Let me see him in the playoffs or with a different coach. Until then Reggie.

DaveP63
02-17-2010, 07:58 AM
Reggie Miller is HIGHLY overrated. He got very glorified around his retirement time and suddenly everyone was calling him "one of the greatest," but nobody ever considered him great while he was actually playing.

Reggie was a great shooter, great in the clutch, good leader, and a decent passer. However he was very one dimensional on offense and couldn't really do a whole lot other than jump shots. He was also a poor defender and rebounder. Reggie had career averages of 18/3/3. I'd say Danny will have career averages of more like 22/6/3.

Danny has Reggie beat in talent easily. He's a much better defender and rebounder, more versitaile on offense, and almost as good of a shooter. Reggie has him beat in leadership and clutch ability (although Danny has shown to be clutch at times), and has him easily beat on the killer instinct scale.

Overall, Granger is the talent and Reggie is the leader. As much as I like Reggie, I'd have to give the slight edge to Granger.

Record book.

rexnom
02-17-2010, 08:17 AM
I'd like to give Danny the type of team that Reggie had for most of the 90s and see what he does with that.

ksuttonjr76
02-17-2010, 08:43 AM
I'd like to give Danny the type of team that Reggie had for most of the 90s and see what he does with that.

Pretty much what I'm getting at, but I just want to see what he can do under a different coach period. I believe that Granger can be more of an explosive scorer in a different offensive system. JOB's current offensive coaching is straight GARBAGE and so freaking frustrating....:mad:. Heck, I believe a lot of Indiana's players would be better under a different coach.

ksuttonjr76
02-17-2010, 08:57 AM
FWIW, the 90s era in which Reggie played most of his prime in was a very difficult era to score in. Scoring was down league wide. More and more long/athletic guys started to roam the perimeter defensively and alter shots and overall play was more physical.

Fans started to get turned off by the low scoring games. That's what prompted all the rule changes, in particular the handchecking rules, and that's what's really increased the scoring this decade. You simply can't be as physical on defense now as back in the 90s. You'd foul out of the game if you tried. Mark Jackson wouldn't have gotten mauled by Scottie Pippen under the current rules.

And Reggie WASN'T a "create his own shot" player though. Honestly, your analysis of perimeter defense then to now is pointless, because Reggie didn't attack the defense head on. Reggie's was a good/great player, because he played within an offense that optimized his shooting and was built on motion screens and picks. Like said someone earlier, it was probably harder for defensive players to guard Miller, because Miller ran through so many dang screens/picks (and Indiana had some wide bodied players during the 90's) that players were tired defensively. Heck, that was one of the reason why Richard Hamilton was assigned to guard him during the playoffs. He was one of the few players in the league "conditioned" to chase Miller all over the court. I remember joking with my friends, that I would end up tripping Miller, because I would get tired of chasing him all over the court like he stole money from me. If Miller played in the same offense against today's defense, Miller would more than likely average the same PPG. Granger is averaging over 20 PPG in an offense, IMHO, that has no real structure. Granger is gifted with more talent and offensive moves than Miller (pure observation can tell you that).

I'm going to stand by my opinion, that if Granger played in the same offense as Miller (not necessarily the same team per se), then he could have easily averaged 25+ PPG.

Unclebuck
02-17-2010, 08:59 AM
I think it is an unfair comparison because so much of Reggie's deserved reputation was built on his playoff performance, and really Danny hasn't even been in the playoff yet.

So I think it is unfair to compare Reggie's regular season and playoffs vs Danny's regular season. But if I am forced to, Reggie is much better.

But if I compare regular season Reggie vs regular season Danny - then I think Danny is a better #1 scorer

1984
02-17-2010, 09:33 AM
Reggie Miller is HIGHLY overrated. He got very glorified around his retirement time and suddenly everyone was calling him "one of the greatest," but nobody ever considered him great while he was actually playing.

Reggie was a great shooter, great in the clutch, good leader, and a decent passer. However he was very one dimensional on offense and couldn't really do a whole lot other than jump shots. He was also a poor defender and rebounder. Reggie had career averages of 18/3/3. I'd say Danny will have career averages of more like 22/6/3.



Ban him. Ban him now.

Pacergeek
02-17-2010, 10:55 AM
this poll is insulting to Reggie Miller. Miller is proven, while Granger is simply the leading scorer on a poor team. Every team has a Danny Granger. Miller simply got it done. I don't care how he scored, the fact is that Reggie was effective. He was more than "just a shooter." Reggie was an outstanding finisher around the rim. Hardly ever missed while close to the basket.

Slick Pinkham
02-17-2010, 11:11 AM
Efficiency also matters. Look at points per FG attempt and you will likely find a dozen seasons by Reggie exceeding Danny's best, and that is regular season ALONE.

Then the superman cape went on in the playoffs (and Shaq can't gripe about that, because Reggie was playoff Superman before Shaq was).

Lower scoring era, better teammates to share the scoring load, less friendly offense to perimeter shots... all of these factors favor Reggie.

d_c
02-17-2010, 12:00 PM
I'm going to stand by my opinion, that if Granger played in the same offense as Miller (not necessarily the same team per se), then he could have easily averaged 25+ PPG.

Reggie Miller played in an era where Latrell Sprewell made 1st Team All NBA at guard while averaging 21 ppg. It was an era of low scoring all across the board. It was an era of more physical play and slow it down offenses with fewer possessions.

I'm not sure what the point really is here. First of all, plenty of guys playing for bad teams have averaged 25 ppg before. I mean, Granger did that last year, right? He did it on a bad team that counted on him to carry a bigger load in an offense that created more possessions due to playing at a faster pace.

Putting him on a good team where there are better scorers around him and/or putting him in a system where you slow it down and there are fewer possessions is hardly a guarantee he's going to score more.

Kegboy
02-17-2010, 12:14 PM
HA! I was vote #31 for Reggie by a lot. :yay2:

Brad8888
02-17-2010, 12:32 PM
Who is better, an injured player who is playing in a significantly flawed system that inflates his stats while at the same time utilizing him the wrong way while expecting him to be a leader which doesn't fit his personality, or a player who often deferred to teammates (not in crunch time, but in general), including younger ones, as his career progressed and was a vocal leader even when he was on the bench while playing for coaches who understood balanced basketball and utilized each of their players in ways that maximized their strengths, including the player in question?

Kind of like debating which is better, ice cream for an ice cream lover who happens to be a lactose intolerant diabetic vs. a compound mitre saw for a carpenter who is looking to create near perfect joints of varying angles in whatever project they happen to be working on at the time.

In the long term, it will be interesting to see if Danny improves and how a coach who understands good basketball would utilize him and how that impacts his stats. Reggie will always have had his jersey retired because he did the little things and the big things and provided the leadership required to make the players buy into whatever the coach wanted to make happen (until the roster with all of the personal agendas Reggie alluded to during his first post retirement interview as a broadcaster came along).

millertime90
02-17-2010, 01:15 PM
reggie deferred to his teammates A LOT more than what granger does. reggie's shots came in the flow of a half court system. reggie is one of the most efficient shooters in nba history. had reggie taken the amount of shots guys like granger, kobe, lebron, wade take, reggie would have been a 25+ppg scorer for his career. reggie scored big when his team needed him too and almost always came up clutch. granger, not so much.

the regginator
02-17-2010, 02:26 PM
Reggie did it when it mattered in the playoffs and in crunch time, hopefully Granger gets the chance to do the same, but until he does I don't even think this is a question. Granger is more versatile, but all he's done so far is play/score well on a team that hasn't accomplished anything.

Putnam
02-17-2010, 02:27 PM
I'd like to give Danny the type of team that Reggie had for most of the 90s and see what he does with that.


Good point.


.

millertime90
02-17-2010, 02:38 PM
Good point.


.

i don't think that it is. look at most of the great players in the nba today and in years past, and tell me what kind of team they had around them when they were drafted. most great players are drafted at the top of the draft, meaning they are forced to play for horrendous teams for at least a spell of their careers. peyton manning for instance, was drafted to a 3-13 team. his rookie season the colts went 3-13 again. the following year and all but one year since, the colts have been a playoff team. but how different was that 3-13 team and the 13-3 team peyton had his second year? nearly identical. it's the greatness of the player that turns those mediocre players into solid starters. danny granger just does not make his teammates better nor is he the leader that reggie was.

Hicks
02-17-2010, 02:46 PM
i don't think that it is. look at most of the great players in the nba today and in years past, and tell me what kind of team they had around them when they were drafted. most great players are drafted at the top of the draft, meaning they are forced to play for horrendous teams for at least a spell of their careers. peyton manning for instance, was drafted to a 3-13 team. his rookie season the colts went 3-13 again. the following year and all but one year since, the colts have been a playoff team. but how different was that 3-13 team and the 13-3 team peyton had his second year? nearly identical. it's the greatness of the player that turns those mediocre players into solid starters. danny granger just does not make his teammates better nor is he the leader that reggie was.

Reggie's second year the team LOST 10 more games. Then the four years after that the team hovered right at .500. Where exactly did Reggie himself carry that group? You don't think guys like Chuck Person or Detlef Schrempf played a role?

ksuttonjr76
02-17-2010, 03:41 PM
Hold up...some of you are giving Miller way too much credit. Indiana didn't play above .500 until his 7th year in the league. Indiana was eliminated in the first round during his 3rd through 6th year. For some of you on this board that would have been an immortal sin, because Indiana would have gotten middle round picks. For the record, Indiana had no draft pick in 1990 and picked 13th (Dale Davis), 14th (Malik Sealy), and 14th (Scott Haskin) in those respective years. In the years they made the playoff before reaching the ECF, they won only 4-5 games more than our respective past 2 years.

This is Granger's 2nd year of being "Da Man", and some of you are ready to crucify him for not being Reggie Miller under a terrible coach????? Wow...just wow. Some of you need a reality check.

As a side note, Miller played for Larry Brown, Rick Carlisle, and Larry Bird (arguably a good coach) who preached defense. Indiana started "backsliding" under Isiah Thomas, but even he was able to stay in playoff contention while playing at or above .500. Let's face it...Granger won't become the player he can be until we get rid of JOB.

d_c
02-17-2010, 04:00 PM
Let's face it...Granger won't become the player he can be until we get rid of JOB.

Guys like Paul Pierce, Antoine Walker, Allen Iverson and Andre Igoudala played just fine under JOB. None of those guys seem to have taken a turn for the worst under his direction. Mike Dunleavy had by far his best year under JOB out of the 5 coaches he's played for.

The player Granger can be was more or less shown last season, under JOB. The biggest thing keeping him from reaching or exceeding that level is his own body not being durable enough. And you'll recall a big reason he dropped all the way down to the #17 pick was concerns about his injuries and durability.

ChicagoJ
02-17-2010, 04:09 PM
Jalen Rose?

SoupIsGood
02-17-2010, 04:29 PM
As Kobe-style #1 scorer, where the one player attempts to lift the team's offense on his shoulders? Has to be Granger. He actually has a chance at creating something from nothing. Reggie's scoring success was much different, and honestly I feel a little uneasy calling him (Reggie) a '#1 scorer' in the sense that it's usually meant.

ksuttonjr76
02-17-2010, 04:33 PM
Guys like Paul Pierce, Antoine Walker, Allen Iverson and Andre Igoudala played just fine under JOB. None of those guys seem to have taken a turn for the worst under his direction. Mike Dunleavy had by far his best year under JOB out of the 5 coaches he's played for.

The player Granger can be was more or less shown last season, under JOB. The biggest thing keeping him from reaching or exceeding that level is his own body not being durable enough. And you'll recall a big reason he dropped all the way down to the #17 pick was concerns about his injuries and durability.

You're one loyal JOB supporter. Danny Granger scouting report...

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Danny-Granger-NBA-Draft-Scouting-Report-2751/
http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/draft_050628.html
http://hoopshype.com/chicago_camp.htm
http://www.golobos.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/granger_danny00.html

No mention of his injuries and durability. Seems to me that he fell farther than he should have. Paul Pierce, Antoine Walker, and Allen Iverson were established all-star/great players BEFORE JOB showed up. Andre Iguodala only averaged 9.0 PPG, 5.7 RPG, 1.7 SPG, and 3.0 APG during his rookie year under JOB, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with his name. I'm not convinced that JOB is the best coach for this team...or any team for that matter.

d_c
02-17-2010, 05:28 PM
You're one loyal JOB supporter. Danny Granger scouting report...

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Danny-Granger-NBA-Draft-Scouting-Report-2751/
http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/draft_050628.html
http://hoopshype.com/chicago_camp.htm
http://www.golobos.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/granger_danny00.html

No mention of his injuries and durability. Seems to me that he fell farther than he should have. Paul Pierce, Antoine Walker, and Allen Iverson were established all-star/great players BEFORE JOB showed up. Andre Iguodala only averaged 9.0 PPG, 5.7 RPG, 1.7 SPG, and 3.0 APG during his rookie year under JOB, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with his name. I'm not convinced that JOB is the best coach for this team...or any team for that matter.

I never said JOB was a great coach who made everyone better, but you're the one saying JOB is holding back Granger. I just said JOB never stopped anyone from reaching their potential. None of Pierce, Walker or Iverson appeared to be any worse playing under JOB than any other coach.

Andre Igoudala was a 20 year old rookie. Under JOB, he was a 1st Team All-Rookie and the rookie game MVP. he shot 49% FG, which he hasn't done the past 4 seasons. It doesn't appear JOB did anything to hurt his game.

Danny Granger had knee problems not mentioned in those articles you posted.
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=18217
He had surgery one one of his knees his 3rd or 4th year of college. After getting drafted, he sat out the entire summer league because his knees.

And if you don't believe me that Granger's draft stock took a tumble due to injury concers.....let's ask the man himself:



Charlie Bury: You were obviously proved to be pretty durable as well, playing in all 82 games both seasons. One of the concerns prior to your draft was a knee injury that you had in college. How big a role did that play in where you ended up being drafted?

Danny Granger: Yeah I think it played a major role because when I went to my workouts my knee was still swollen. What's funny about it is the reason my knee was swollen was because I had to play until the end of my senior year and I didn't get any time off because I had to work out for the draft. So I was on anti-inflammatory just to get me through it. My knee wasn't nearly as strong as it is now. So when I went for my workouts I got red flagged because of the swelling. Well after I got drafted, the Pacers realized it and they sat me out for like two or three months.


http://www.draftexpress.com/article/My-NBA-Draft-Experience-Danny-Granger-2061/

SycamoreKen
02-17-2010, 05:48 PM
As Kobe-style #1 scorer, where the one player attempts to lift the team's offense on his shoulders? Has to be Granger. He actually has a chance at creating something from nothing. Reggie's scoring success was much different, and honestly I feel a little uneasy calling him (Reggie) a '#1 scorer' in the sense that it's usually meant.

Both of them should be a "Robin" to a Kobi "Batman" type. ( I hate that analogy, but it is what it is.) I'll be watching the game more closely now tonight to see how Granger does. In the few games i have got to see him play, i thought he didn't touch the ball enough on offense. How can he make others better if he doesn't get to at least touch the ball a majority of the possetions?

Noodle
02-17-2010, 06:02 PM
Danny is the better scorer because he can shoot over people and create his own shot.

The End

ksuttonjr76
02-17-2010, 06:51 PM
I never said JOB was a great coach who made everyone better, but you're the one saying JOB is holding back Granger. I just said JOB never stopped anyone from reaching their potential. None of Pierce, Walker or Iverson appeared to be any worse playing under JOB than any other coach.

Andre Igoudala was a 20 year old rookie. Under JOB, he was a 1st Team All-Rookie and the rookie game MVP. he shot 49% FG, which he hasn't done the past 4 seasons. It doesn't appear JOB did anything to hurt his game.

Danny Granger had knee problems not mentioned in those articles you posted.
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=18217
He had surgery one one of his knees his 3rd or 4th year of college. After getting drafted, he sat out the entire summer league because his knees.

And if you don't believe me that Granger's draft stock took a tumble due to injury concers.....let's ask the man himself:



http://www.draftexpress.com/article/My-NBA-Draft-Experience-Danny-Granger-2061/

That can't be right, because he played 78 games his rookie season. Not sure what became of the other 4 games. As for JOB, he's not running an offense that optimizes Granger's strengths, hence Granger is not playing to his full potential.

d_c
02-17-2010, 07:05 PM
That can't be right, because he played 78 games his rookie season. Not sure what became of the other 4 games. As for JOB, he's not running an offense that optimizes Granger's strengths, hence Granger is not playing to his full potential.

The interviewer is completely correct. The interview was in May 2007 at the conclusion of Granger's 2nd NBA season. That year, he played all 82 games (yes, he did play 78 his rookie year). Regardless, it's a fact that he had surgery in college on his knee and that he sat out Summer League because the Pacers themselves were concerned about his knees.

What is the optimal offense for Granger? That's debatable, but if you're saying triangle, there are a limited number of coaches who have experience running it as the primary system.

Was JOB's offense ideal for Pierce, AI or Walker? I don't know. But I do know that it's not like they were significantly worse or better under JOB than other coaches they played for. It's a players' league and the best players thrive and show their abilities regardless of what coach they play under.

SycamoreKen
02-18-2010, 11:32 AM
Is Granger the #1 scorer on the this team? is this team even constructed that way? The game last night, and at times I was not watching so take that in mind, did not have that feel for me. It looked like it was almost wevery guy for himself and taking the open shot. As I have state dbefore I do not get to see the Pacers much. Is that just the offense? Shoot it if you got it?

I guess I'm saying that I didn't see anything run for any particular person. I could argue that Murphy is the #1 scorer based ont he number of shots he took last night. There seems to be no structure.

On that note, look at the Spurs side of the ledger. Do they even have a #1 scorer? Obviousy their #1 option is Duncan, but rarely is he the high scorer. Parker was last night, but Ginobili is usually the guy who takes the crunch time shots. Maybe the question shouldn't really be about #1 scorer, but rather the #1 option on offense. Heck, i'm not even sure any of this makes sense!