PDA

View Full Version : Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner



vnzla81
09-10-2010, 07:30 PM
http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/web_100909.html



The FIBA World Championship hasn't exactly been a coming-out party for Danny Granger. In fact, he's been something of a bit player on the international stage.

Granger was the only player on the U.S. roster that did not appear in the 89-79 victory over Russia today in the quarterfinals in Istanbul, Turkey. It's the second DNP-CD of the event for the Pacers' star, who has averaged 13.2 minutes and 5.8 points, shooting 12-of-29 (.414) overall and 3-of-12 (.250) from the 3-point line in his five appearances. He has seven assists but just six rebounds, the fewest on the team.

Granger has been stuck behind Andre Iguodala and Rudy Gay in Coach Mike Krzyzewski's rotation. Seeking to find the reasons why, I reached out to media experts that have been covering the U.S. team.

"I think that defense probably has something to do with it, but it’s also just a numbers game," said John Schuhmann of NBA.com. "There are 12 good players on the roster, and only nine or 10 of them can realistically be in the rotation. In 2008, it was (Carlos) Boozer, (Tayshaun) Prince and (Michael) Redd that didn’t get much playing time.

"But there could still be an opportunity for Danny to make an impact. If the team needs an offensive boost and Rudy Gay is struggling, I can see Krzyzewski bringing in Danny to put some points on the board. I remember Prince giving the U.S. a lift with a couple of big plays in the gold medal game two years ago in spot duty."

Chris Sheridan of ESPN.com said he didn't expect much opportunity for Granger because of the depth of the roster.

"It was down to him and (Rajon) Rondo for the last cut, and Rondo made the decision easy by quitting," Sheridan said. "At this point, Granger and Rudy Gay are somewhat superfluous, and Rudy has been pretty darn good in an energizer role off the bench.

"Granger was hurt during the lead-up to the tournament, so he never really got to establish himself in a role. There's always one guy on the U.S. team who is an All-Star but rarely plays (see Carlos Boozer, 2008 Olympics), and Granger is that guy this year.

Fanhouse.com's Chris Tomasson said Granger has been the victim of "a numbers game."

"Granger is a scorer at forward, and Team USA has Kevin Durant, the NBA scoring leader," said Tomasson. "Plus, Iguodala and Gay are playing well at forward. And Iguodala does more things overall than Granger. It looked coming in as if Granger could slide a good bit to power forward due to Team USA being a bit weak in the post. But Kevin Love has been more efficient than perhaps some believed.

"Coming to Europe three weeks ago, Team USA's greatest strength looked to be at guard. The guards have been up and down but the forwards have overall been quite solid. So Granger hasn't been able to get big minutes."

Opportunities are dwindling. The U.S. faces the winner of the Argentina-Lithuania matchup in the semifinals Saturday. The championship game will be played Sunday.

Fast breaks …


The Pacers may have been close to acquiring a talented young power forward but a potential three-team deal involving New York and Portland reportedly was squashed by none other than Donnie Walsh of the Knicks, according to Hoopsworld.com. The deal would've brought Anthony Randolph from New York to the Pacers, with Indiana sending a first-round pick to Portland and the Blazers shipping Rudy Fernandez to the Knicks. Walsh reportedly passed because he didn't want to give up on the athleticism, versatility and potential of the 6-11 Randolph.

After New Orleans voided a contract claiming he failed a physical in mid-July, Luther Head apparently has settled for a non-guaranteed deal with Sacramento, reports Yahoo! Sports. Head's contract with the Hornets was offered by former GM Jeff Bower but rescinded after Bower was replaced by Hugh Weber, citing a failed physical. Head played in 47 games for the Pacers last season, averaging 7.6 points.

Tom White
09-10-2010, 08:23 PM
It's the second DNP-CD of the event for the Pacers' star, who has averaged 13.2 minutes and 5.8 points, shooting 12-of-29 (.414) overall and 3-of-12 (.250) from the 3-point line in his five appearances. He has seven assists but just six rebounds, the fewest on the team.

Right there are the numbers he is a victim of - his own. That, and a lack of defensive play.

I can't see it being a matter of roster numbers. He is the ONLY player to get TWO DNP-CD's. If it were just a roster matter, he would still get SOME amount of minutes.

I think, if nothing else, this world tournament is showing that he may be somewhat overvalued by Pacer fans. Remember the NBA players poll where he was voted "most over-rated"?

Anyone here still think Granger is "Batman"?

Kstat
09-10-2010, 08:29 PM
Nothing good will come of this....

Granger is either the innocent victim of the evil coach K, or a terrible player that's being exposed.

Nobody's willing to give any middle ground and admit Granger is very good at certain things, and not very good at others. He just happens to be on a team that emphasizes the things he doesn't do well.

Sookie
09-10-2010, 08:50 PM
Coaches have preferences with skillsets, with players.

But at the end of the day, Danny was one of the 12 guys picked to represent the US. I hope he considers this opportunity special, instead of worrying about the amount of minutes being played.

Kstat
09-10-2010, 08:57 PM
I fail to see why his minutes are even relevant. This is team USA, not team Indiana. Granger is just another player. Getting worried over who's getting minutes is silly.

When Tayshaun Prince was on the 2008 Olympic team, it never even crossed my mind to be offended that he was the 10th man on the team. I just wanted my country to win the gold. That's just me, though.

Kemo
09-10-2010, 09:10 PM
What makes me sad , is that it seems like Danny is ALWAYS getting overlooked, so to speak..

I mean .. yea it was GREAT when he made his first All Star team , but the accolade felt kinda hollow in how he didn't see the floor much , and never really got a chance to do what he does best out on the floor..

I see this Team USA thing in the same light ..... while it is GREAT that he made the team... it SUCKS that he is relegated to the bench , while players like Gay and Iguadala get all the floortime .. Don't get me wrong both Gay and Iggy are nice players.... Maybe it is just the homer in me , but I think Danny could be a bigger asset out on the court than he is being allowed to be ...

.
Danny just needs to get fed up with it , get a chip on his shoulder , and PROVE to the world that he not only BELONGS, but that he deserves to be "the man" .. at least some of the time ..

Kstat
09-10-2010, 09:13 PM
I don't think it SUCKS or its GREAT that he's on the bench.

Team USA is 7-0 and in the semifinals. That's all that should matter.

Granger isn't a Pacer at the current moment, he's an American. So far we're doing very well without him, so until I see otherwise, I'm on board with Krzyzewski's gameplan, which has worked pretty well thusfar.

Bball
09-10-2010, 09:29 PM
Granger victim of 3 years of bad coaching for Team USA/Conrad Brunner

Fixed...

KennerLeaguer
09-10-2010, 10:02 PM
Team USA doesn't even have a recognizable gameplan on offense. K is basically allowing them to go one-on-one and if all else fails have Durant bail the guys out. Since K is not interested in a postup game he is stressing putting pressure on the defensive end. This pressure leads to turnovers, which lead to fastbreaks which lead to much needed "easy" points. Amazing enough its working. I was listening to the Tony Kornheiser Show last week and on the show he had two basketball guys of the media (Bob Ryan and David Aldridge) basically say there isn't really much evidence of a coaching scheme going on on the offensive side of the ball when it comes to Team USA. They are right. But, hey, USA is undefeated so...whatever. Unfortunately for Granger he is not the ideal guy for applying perimeter pressure on opposing teams. So there is no role for him on this squad. It is what it is.

Kstat
09-10-2010, 10:11 PM
There's no interest in a post game because (A) they have no post players and (B) FIBA rules generally frown on post play.

small-ball is generally how the international game is played. Most of the big men step outside the 3-point line. May as well skip the middle men and start four swingmen.

Even when USA sent superstar centers to international tournaments, they never really dominated. You can pretty Much maul anybody in the low post.

Trader Joe
09-10-2010, 10:14 PM
Um, who cares?

If Danny really wanted to play, he could give a better effort on defense. He should be honored he was given the chance to play.

I can't believe his minutes are even this big of an issue.

Major Cold
09-10-2010, 10:38 PM
For me this oppurtunity clearly exposes the fact that we have secretly wanted to slide the other way. Danny is a lazy team defender and an equally lazy rebounder.

What gets me is that he gets the pass because he scores (although not extremely effective). While Rush gets slammed because he doesn't score, yet he defends (although gets lost in the crazy team defense----alas no more Troy!!!! :dancingapple:).

Rush is a more active rebounder and a more solid one-on-one defender. Yes Brandon needs to be more assertive is shooting and driving with assurance. But our "franchise" player needs to quit Jermaining around and play hard in all facets. Just think Danny was considered the next Matrix/Pippen. Now he is lucky to be the next...

Jon Theodore
09-10-2010, 10:52 PM
I have to agree with Major Cold here....I know it is not a popular opinion but I believe it to be the reality. Granger wants to score, doesn't really care about rebounding or defense. It's actually pretty sad, because he is so gifted and if he was more driven he could really be great. I think Danny has peaked...he is not taking any team deep in the playoffs. I have been thinking this for the past two years, we need to trade him while his stock is high.

d_c
09-10-2010, 11:22 PM
There's no interest in a post game because (A) they have no post players and (B) FIBA rules generally frown on post play.

small-ball is generally how the international game is played. Most of the big men step outside the 3-point line. May as well skip the middle men and start four swingmen.

Even when USA sent superstar centers to international tournaments, they never really dominated. You can pretty Much maul anybody in the low post.

Correct. Tim Duncan basically "retired" from FIBA play after the 2004 Olympics because the importance of a postup bigman is greatly reduced and he wasn't getting any calls inside.

The 2008 Team won gold with basically what was small ball and this current team is a poor man's version of it.

Hoop
09-10-2010, 11:40 PM
I'm just happy Danny made the team, great experience for him. I hope it motivates him to become a better player.

Coach K has put the "team" out there that he thinks well do the best job, I have zero problems with the lineups he is using.

It's just to hard to compare who's better than who with a team like this, due to roles and team needs.

Personally from an NBA stand point I would only trade Granger one to one for a few guys on the team. Durant or Rose for sure, I'd have to think about Curry or Westbrook. The rest I don't think I would trade Danny for, especially not Odom or Billups due to age.

jeffg-body
09-11-2010, 12:22 AM
I am not worried a bit about Danny's lack of playing time. I think the experience alone will help him improve his game and take it to another level. I am even a bit glad he's not playing much at all because he won't come into camp physically drained from playing on the USA team.

KennerLeaguer
09-11-2010, 12:24 AM
There's no interest in a post game because (A) they have no post players and (B) FIBA rules generally frown on post play.

small-ball is generally how the international game is played. Most of the big men step outside the 3-point line. May as well skip the middle men and start four swingmen.

Even when USA sent superstar centers to international tournaments, they never really dominated. You can pretty Much maul anybody in the low post.

I have seen enough FIBA over the years. I know how it goes. I also know Coach K and his lack of developing post players as well as his disinterest in pounding the ball in the paint.

Its amazing that good teams like Spain and Argentina manage to include guys who can post people up and score and yet you keep suggesting that such a style of play is irrelevant. And once again the reason why Team USA doesn't have any post players is because K and Jerry only invited one to the tryouts : Brook Lopez. I'm not including Kevin Love because he is too undersized and doesn't typically score with his back to the basket. Anyway I agree with you that Granger does not have a real role on this team and much of the blame for this must go to Granger himself. But at the same time I'm also arguing that K does not have a scheme for halfcourt offense. You have been looking at a lot of the games yourself and surely you must see by now that the international teams tend to have better halfcout schemes than Team USA.

Kstat
09-11-2010, 10:15 AM
They have better halfcourt chemistry because they have played together a lot longer. You don't just throw 12 guys together and become the Utah Jazz in 2 months.

Argentina has post players? Who, exactly? Luis Scola spends his time pick on the elbow doing pick and rolls and shooting 15-foot jumpers all game.

Spain uses the Gasols well, but again they are a pick and roll team. There are very little low post plays, unless one of them manages to get position right under the basket.

As for coach k not wanting a post up game, have you forgotten Elton Brand? That 1999 Duke team ran low post ISOs %90 of the time down the court and turned Brand into Shaq lite.

Coach K's brilliance with team USA is his ability to maximize the effectiveness of 12 random players against teams that have been playing together for 5-10 years.

KennerLeaguer
09-11-2010, 10:26 AM
They have better halfcourt chemistry because they have played together a lot longer. You don't just throw 12 guys together and become the Utah Jazz in 2 months.



You didn't seem to care about that when I was arguing for Coach Larry Brown and what he had to deal with in 2004. Now you want to trot that point out to make a defense of Coach K? That's a tad hypocritical. But that's an argument for another time. I do not think that K 's Duke teams have had a legit halfcourt offense in over a dozen years. His Team USA didn't have legit halfcourt offenses either from 2006 thru 2008. I supposes he coaches by leadership or inspiration because it surely isn't by his halfcourt strategy. He has the best players on his roster and they are use to playing one-on-one. So he just sits back and watches them do just that. Sometimes you can get away with it, sometimes you can't (as in 2006 and twice in 1990).

Justin Tyme
09-11-2010, 10:27 AM
[QUOTE=Jon Theodore;1059530]

Granger wants to score, doesn't really care about rebounding or defense./QUOTE]


I got to thinking about this last night. I know why I feel the reason is, and that reason is Jim O'Brien.

I feel Granger has gotten lazy playing in Jimmy's helter skelter run n gun with little "D" type scheme the last 3 years. Personally, I feel with Murphy gone you will see Granger camped out behind the arc more this year shooting 3's. From 07-08 season to last season, Granger increased his 3 pt shot from 5 to 7 a game. There was a time last season he was shooting 9 per game at around 31%. I look for Granger to shoot around 9 3's per game this coming season.

Granger hasn't played good defense since his 1st couple of years in the league. Why should he when "D" isn't something but an after thought with Jimmy. Granger isn't a great rebounder or big in asts either. In Jimmy's system, you just need to be a scorer which is exactly what Granger has become, so I'm not surprised at all that Granger isn't getting PT in the World games. My hope is this will open up Granger's eyes, and he decides to work on his overall game to improve his value as a player.

I like Granger, but I'm not in love with him like so many others are. I'm not adverse to trading Granger who has become a 1 dimensional player for a player who has a more well rounded game. Sorry, but Granger isn't Batman, nor will he ever be. I don't ever feel he'll be an Allstar again either. Too many have just embellished Granger as a player b/c he plays for the Blue N Gold. He's a good player just not as good as many like to think he is.

In Granger's defense, maybe the best thing for his improvement is getting away from Jimmy. I hate seeing Granger in a 4th year of Jimmy's type system. IMO, I feel it's detrimential to his overall growth as a player. JMOAA.

Kstat
09-11-2010, 10:34 AM
You didn't seem to care about that when I was arguing for Coach Larry Brown and what he had to deal with in 2004. Now you want to trot that point out to make a defense of Coach K? That's a tad hypocritical.

Huh?

That's exactly the reason why Larry Brown was a bad fit. He's a long-term coach. He only knows one way, and that way isn't adjustable to a 3-month time frame. I thought we already went over this.


But that's an argument for another time. I do not think that K 's Duke teams have had a legit halfcourt offense in over a dozen years.

11, to be exact. That would be the last time he HAD a premier post player to go to.


His Team USA didn't have legit halfcourt offenses either from 2006 thru 2008. I supposes he coaches by leadership or inspiration because it surely isn't by his halfcourt strategy.

Well, He hasn't lost a game in 4 years as team USA coach...so I guess he's made the right choices?

This obsession with "halfcourt strategy" is stupid. There is plenty of evidence in his brilliant coaching in his unconventional rotations and superb defensive schemes. His stamp doesn't have to be on every little thing they do.


He has the best players on his roster and they are use to playing one-on-one.

Just a hint...their best players are one-on-one players....


So he just sits back and watches them do just that. Sometimes you can get away with it, sometimes you can't (as in 2006 and twice in 1990).

Right. He lets his players play. Amazing concept. A far cry from the obsessive over-coaching I see going on in this tournament. I wish more coaches would learn to do this.

In the 2004 Olympics, team USA finished 7th out of 12 teams in %FG, and 9th in %3PT. There's you awesome halfcourt offense at work. Larry Brown tried to coach a FIBA team by NBA rules, and failed miserably.

In the 2008 Olympics, USA finished 1st in %FG, and 6th in %3PT.

This year, USA is 2nd (out of 24 teams) in %FG and 3rd in %3PT. Not too bad for a guy that can't coach a halfcourt offense, huh?

imawhat
09-11-2010, 10:47 AM
Ugh, Granger's a victim of his terrible defense and shot selection. That is it.

I don't see any indications that his game will improve and it concerns me. He may score a lot more points now, but he's a hollow version of his former self. He's always had a high 3:2 pt shot ratio, but at least he used to make the defense work. Now they don't have to because he just chucks it.

What concerns me most is that he conceded that Gay and Iggy are better defenders. Granger could be a much better defender than both of them with his length and power. It's all about effort.

I'd take the efficient, puts pressure on the defense 15 ppg with defensive effort Granger over the current version 10 times out of 10.

Kstat
09-11-2010, 10:49 AM
I'd disagree that Ganger has as much "length and power" as Andre Igoudala, let alone more...

KennerLeaguer
09-11-2010, 11:26 AM
Huh?

Huh, what? You shot down my theory last time that Brown failed ultimately in 2004 because his players had been playing together for a short time. Now, all of a sudden you think that's a legit excuse for why K's 2010 team looks horrible in its halfcourt offense.


That's exactly the reason why Larry Brown was a bad fit. He's a long-term coach. He only knows one way, and that way isn't adjustable to a 3-month time frame. I thought we already went over this.

Brown is much better at TEACHING players than K can ever hope to be. However going back to your point Mr. Long-term Larry Brown seemed to do quite well in 2003 when his team was full of talented veterans. That bunch dominated as much as any of K's teams so far. And that was Brown's first year as head coach of Team USA. That showed he is more flexible then you're giving him credit for. But even if he was as inflexible as you make him out to be and even if he needed more of a long term process, wasn't that supposed to be the plan originally anyhow? Remember that the 2003 team was supposed to play in 2004 as well. But 10 of the 12 guys dropped out. Brown was handed a team in 2004 put together so late they only had about 2 weeks of practice. K has been allowed to work with most of his current players as far back as the summer of 2009. Some even came in for workouts against his Redeem Team in the summer of 2008. K was never handed a bunch of inexperienced misfits. And still even that wasn't enough for K to come up with gold in 2006.


11, to be exact. That would be the last time he HAD a premier post player to go to.

Is that Brand you're referring to? If so maybe you don't remember Boozer who came in afterwards. Boozer was on Duke for three seasons and never got the touches he should have. K allowed his guards to jack up threes anytime they wanted.

Anyway if K didn't have other premier post players since then whose fault is that? He gets top ten recruits each year, including guys who are premier post players coming out of high school. But most of them end up doing next to nothing at Duke. Is that just a case of bad luck in getting guys who were overrated or does K take some of the blame for not being to develop players/make them better?




Well, He hasn't lost a game in 4 years as team USA coach...so I guess he's made the right choices?

He didn't coach in 2009 if you are including that year. If you are instead including 2006, well, you're wrong. And frankly his teams in 2007 and 2008 after having a year or two under their belt shouldn't have lost any games. He was the ONLY coach of Team USA to have practically the same roster of NBA professionals to play again the following summer and (and then for a third summer in 2008). Since no other coach in the history of the world ever had such an opportunity, I'm going to suggest that we not yet put his record over these last three summers he coached as one of mankind's greatest achievements. But that's just me.


This obsession with "halfcourt strategy" is stupid. There is plenty of evidence in his brilliant coaching in his unconventional rotations and superb defensive schemes. His stamp doesn't have to be on every little thing they do.

You may be right that the halfcourt strategy is stupid. But please stop acting as if K's coaching technique of limited rotations and allowing guys to "do their thing" is brilliant. That's what most NBA coaches do with their rosters and that's increasingly what many of the NCAA coaches at the top program do.


Just a hint...their best players are one-on-one players....

Well, that's what I wrote. I simply forgot to add a "d" at the end of the word "use." My point was that he had players who were used to playing one-on-one so he lets them do it. There's not much teamwork required when his teams are on the offensive attack.




Right. He lets his players play. Amazing concept. A far cry from the obsessive over-coaching I see going on in this tournament. I wish more coaches would learn to do this.

Only if those coaches can have years to work with the top players in practice and on teams. Otherwise that's going to burn us again when an ingternational team is on its game.


In the 2004 Olympics, team USA finished 7th out of 12 teams in %FG, and 9th in %3PT. There's you awesome halfcourt offense at work. Larry Brown tried to coach a FIBA team by NBA rules, and failed miserably.

Of course they played badly considered the situation they found themselves and how they were thrown together. Now use your impressive research skills and come up with the numbers for the Brown-coached 2003 team that was full of veterans and (at the time) better players than those on the 2004 team.


In the 2008 Olympics, USA finished 1st in %FG, and 6th in %3PT.


Seriously are you actually going to compare 2008 squad that had been together for three summers with the 2004 team that had been together for as long as a cup of coffee? You do realize that the vast majority of the 2004 guys had never played a minute of international ball before the summer of 2004 and that perhaps half of them had only been around in the NBA for one or two seasons? Are you actually that big of a fan of K to think he was responsible for the better FG% in 2008? You don't think he benefitted from the fact that guys like LeBron, Wade and Carmello got their feet wet in 2004 first? Or that after having them in 2006 and 2007 they were definitely going to be fine-tuned squad by 2008? Are you Dick Vitale or something because its rare that I come across such naked love of Coach K? Not even amongst Duke fans.

Major Cold
09-11-2010, 11:30 AM
Look at the measurements. He has the length over Iggy. But the power is all Andre. He is more of a power wing, with greater leaping ability. Danny is less apt to use lower body, most importantly his hips.

But Danny is a better scorer.


Coach K is perfect for international play. One of the maim reasons why he has not jumped to the NBA.

Boozer could jave dominated more in the low post at Duke. One of the main reasons why he slipped. After Coach K squandered that he really hasnt got that player on the low block. mcBob is yet another player inable to develop a low post game at Duke. But that is mostly on him and his frame.

KennerLeaguer
09-11-2010, 11:41 AM
Look at the measurements. He has the length over Iggy. But the power is all Andre. He is more of a power wing, with greater leaping ability. Danny is less apt to use lower body, most importantly his hips.

But Danny is a better scorer.


Coach K is perfect for international play. One of the maim reasons why he has not jumped to the NBA.

Boozer could jave dominated more in the low post at Duke. One of the main reasons why he slipped. After Coach K squandered that he really hasnt got that player on the low block. mcBob is yet another player inable to develop a low post game at Duke. But that is mostly on him and his frame.



This.

Obviously you've been paying attention to those Duke teams. I'll admit to rooting for Duke from the Brand years through the Boozer seasons. He could have/should have had a couple of more championships during that run rather than the the single championship he came with. Just my opinion though. I think he fell in love with guys like Jason Williams taking threes all game long and haven't looked back since. Boozer however was so underused that people started thinking Maryland's Lonnie Baxter was a better pro prospect.

Oh, and since the Laettner days K must have had about 20 McDAAs who were the top big men coming out of high school. Almsot all of them turned out to be busts. That's a lot of players. Some of that is on K and his disinterest in the post game.

Major Cold
09-11-2010, 11:48 AM
Look at the measurements. He has the length over Iggy. But the power is all Andre. He is more of a power wing, with greater leaping ability. Danny is less apt to use lower body, most importantly his hips.

But Danny is a better scorer.


Coach K is perfect for international play. One of the maim reasons why he has not jumped to the NBA.

Boozer could jave dominated more in the low post at Duke. One of the main reasons why he slipped. After Coach K squandered that he really hasnt got that player on the low block. mcBob is yet another player inable to develop a low post game at Duke. But that is mostly on him and his frame.

Kstat
09-11-2010, 12:15 PM
I'm not going to argue further with someone so out of touch with reality that he thinks Carlos Boozer is a low-post god...even in the NBA as a 20/10 player he isn't a low post player. Everything he shoots is a pick and roll jumper of transition layup. You have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, and are inventing reality as you go along.

Hicks
09-11-2010, 12:35 PM
A couple of things I wonder about with Granger:

1) Couldn't part of his lack on D these last few years be because he's asked to be our primary offensive weapon on teams that weren't exactly stocked with scorers? I thought even the great Kobe Bryant went through this before the Lakers became elite again, where he was asked to focus so much on his scoring that he wasn't considered as elite of a defender for a year or two in the mid (or so) 00's?

2) We know Danny had knee concerns coming out of New Mexico. Could that quietly be playing some part in why he plays a more 'reserved' game and just tries to pick his spots?

Hicks
09-11-2010, 12:41 PM
I'm not going to argue further with someone so out of touch with reality that he thinks Carlos Boozer is a low-post god...even in the NBA as a 20/10 player he isn't a low post player. Everything he shoots is a pick and roll jumper of transition layup. You have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, and are inventing reality as you go along.

FYI on Boozer's offensive plays (of which there are a recorded 1,649):

0.1% were as the P&R ball handler (a whopping 1 time ;) )
1.0% were off screens
1.5% were hand offs
5.7% were isolation
7.3% were in transition
7.7% were "all other plays"
8.6% were offensive rebounds
11.2% were spot-ups
13.5% were as the P&R roll man
21.5% were post-ups
22.1% were cuts

imawhat
09-11-2010, 12:48 PM
A couple of things I wonder about with Granger:

1) Couldn't part of his lack on D these last few years be because he's asked to be our primary offensive weapon on teams that weren't exactly stocked with scorers? I thought even the great Kobe Bryant went through this before the Lakers got elite again, where he was asked to focus so much on his scoring that he wasn't considered as elite of a defender for a year or two in the mid (or so) 00's?

It's very possible. We've pretty much heard that from our coaches, so it definitely is a factor.

My concern is that we heard all of this lip service at the beginning of last season about defense. And in the first 10 or so games, Granger's defense was as good as it had ever been. Then his heal problems increased, he got hurt, had personal problems, and his defensive effort disappeared (except when he had to guard a good/great player).


2) We know Danny had knee concerns coming out of New Mexico. Could that quietly be playing some part in why he plays a more 'reserved' game and just tries to pick his spots?

He played the '08-'09 season like he was having some knee problems, and I was convinced he'd sit out part of last season with a knee injury. It's very easy to spot....lack of flexibility, trouble bending down, less cutting, no effort for loose balls, etc.. We've seen it many times with Marquis, Bender, Jermaine etc. But Danny's knees looked fine last year, so I don't think that's it.

odeez
09-11-2010, 12:56 PM
It's doesn't bother me at all that Danny is on the bench for team USA. Like it was said above, it's team USA, not team Indiana.

Danny's lack of defense as been the focus of late, from the media to a lot of us here at PD. How bad has his defense really become? Has anyone culled the numbers? From what I see he still is a great defender, but has become more offensive minded over the last few years. I think in large part because what has been asked of him and the way JOB coaches the team. I think it would help if we had a better defensive philosophy or defensive minded coach... or both.

Cactus Jax
09-11-2010, 01:39 PM
Blaming JoB on this one, not Danny. Under Carlisle he was a very good defender while the scoring was down a bit but enough still that he didn't fall into the Brandon Rush category.

Now with Jim it's been score score score since day 1 that he's been here. It partly was made so more people would come and see the games, as high scores = more fans in their eyes. Some are still way overreacting to this suggesting he's not a worthy player which is bs.

Everyone's new lover in Roy doesn't play any better defense than Danny does which isn't Roy's fault again it's Jim's fault. I think some are going to be really dissapointed in Roy's production this year as I think he'll be a 3rd or 4th option at best in Jim's offense.

mildlysane
09-11-2010, 01:43 PM
...Everyone's new lover in Roy...
That's funny....:laugh::D

ksuttonjr76
09-11-2010, 01:52 PM
Meh...no biggie. I just figured that the team chemsitry wasn't in his favor. On a side note, I'm not sure what why everyone is tripping so much on his defense. He was in Top 5 for blocks AND steals from the SF position. What more do you all want from him given the defensive mindset of the coach?

vnzla81
09-11-2010, 02:03 PM
I know that some people keep saying that is not a big deal, my problem is that if we ever expect the Pacers to play any D that needs to start with "the franchise players", how are we going to tell Brandon and the other guys to play D if Danny is not willing to do it?

travmil
09-11-2010, 02:19 PM
I'm not going to argue further with someone so out of touch with reality that he thinks Carlos Boozer is a low-post god...even in the NBA as a 20/10 player he isn't a low post player. Everything he shoots is a pick and roll jumper of transition layup. You have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, and are inventing reality as you go along.

One of the funnier posts I've ever read here...

Even funnier with Hick's stats underneath it.

Kstat
09-11-2010, 02:33 PM
Funny that he proved my point? %80 of plays run for Boozer aren't post-ups. The ones that are, are off of switches in the pick and roll.

Not to mention, it doesn't discriminate between high or low post.

...so what percentage of those total plays does Boozer get a low-pot ISO? %5? %3?

travmil
09-11-2010, 02:39 PM
Now who's inventing reality? You said that EVERYTHING he shoots is a pick and roll jumper or transition layup. Now, when confronted with evidence that only 20% of his plays were as you describe, you're trying to deflect and make it look like he proved you right when in fact, he proved you very, very wrong.

count55
09-11-2010, 03:06 PM
I'm not going to argue further with someone so out of touch with reality that he thinks Carlos Boozer is a low-post god...even in the NBA as a 20/10 player he isn't a low post player. Everything he shoots is a pick and roll jumper of transition layup. You have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, and are inventing reality as you go along.


FYI on Boozer's offensive plays (of which there are a recorded 1,649):

0.1% were as the P&R ball handler (a whopping 1 time ;) )
1.0% were off screens
1.5% were hand offs
5.7% were isolation
7.3% were in transition
7.7% were "all other plays"
8.6% were offensive rebounds
11.2% were spot-ups
13.5% were as the P&R roll man
21.5% were post-ups
22.1% were cuts

While the choice of PnR as illustration was inaccurate, Kstat's overall point holds: Boozer is not really a post presence.

For reference, here are some of the other post players (Note: I did this analysis back in the May during the playoffs, and so some of the totals may have changed for the guys who were still playing - Synergy doesn't split regular season from playoff performances in their numbers, which is irritating.)

http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/post.JPG

It's easy to assume PnR's with Utah because they run so much motion and screen action, but not a lot of it actually finishes out of the PnR - either by Ball Handler or the Roll Man. They run a lot of screens and cuts, and very little in the way of Post-Ups - a lower percentage of shots coming out of the post than 21 other teams, including the Indiana Pacers.

Hibbert, who was supposedly starved and ignored in the post, got 124 more shots out of post action than Boozer in over 1,000 fewer minutes (including complete playoff numbers). The Pacers were much more focused and aggressive in trying to establish Roy in the post when he was on the floor, than Utah really ever has been with Boozer.

travmil
09-11-2010, 03:12 PM
No, he's wrong. He didn't say that Boozer occasionally plays in the post, or that Boozer sometimes gets points from sources other than pick and roll and transition layups. The numbers don't bear out what he insists is true. I can agree that he doesn't spend all of his time in the post, but I can't agree that he spends NONE which is what was insinuated and then soundly proven wrong.

Kstat
09-11-2010, 03:14 PM
Your obsession with trying to prove me wrong is getting a tad silly.

My original point was that Boozer is not a low post player. Anybody with half a brain and two working eyes could back that up, which is why I originally backed out of the discussion, because I was clearly arguing with someone that was not seeing reality.

I never said he spent none of his time in the low post. That's ridiculous. Chris Paul doesn't spend NONE of his time ion the low post. Trying to make this argument all about me (although flattering) is going way, way off the reservation.

travmil
09-11-2010, 03:17 PM
Almost as silly as your belief that you're never wrong.

More deflection I see. Just for once own up to what you said. Maybe you didn't use the exact words that Boozer spends NO time in the post, but you did say that "everything he shoots is a pick and roll jumper or transition layup". I guess I could be misinterpreting that.

Agree to disagree I suppose...

Kstat
09-11-2010, 03:26 PM
About %90 of those listed plays could be interpreted as a product of the pick and roll offense, even if Boozer himself wasn't the primary screener.

As I said before, even any low-post touches could be interpreted that way, because any switch with a guard would force Boozer to back him under the rim. Even Rip Hamilton does this on occasion. Doesn't mean he's a real low-post player.

travmil
09-11-2010, 03:39 PM
As I see it, the problem here is that to make your point, you used an absolute word like "everything" that leaves no wiggle room. Maybe that's not what you meant. I'm fine with that, and I apologize for interpreting things that way.

Kstat
09-11-2010, 03:41 PM
the initial point was that I said coach K is an excellent coach and a great coach for team USA, and someone decided to argue that coach K is a crappy coach that does not develop players and sucks at strategy, and decided to use Carlos Boozer's lack of low post touches at Duke as proof. If I used an absolute that was taken the wrong way, that's on me. It doesn't detract from my initial point, though.

MLB007
09-11-2010, 04:19 PM
A couple of things I wonder about with Granger:

1) Couldn't part of his lack on D these last few years be because he's asked to be our primary offensive weapon on teams that weren't exactly stocked with scorers? I thought even the great Kobe Bryant went through this before the Lakers became elite again, where he was asked to focus so much on his scoring that he wasn't considered as elite of a defender for a year or two in the mid (or so) 00's?

2) We know Danny had knee concerns coming out of New Mexico. Could that quietly be playing some part in why he plays a more 'reserved' game and just tries to pick his spots?

1) Of course it is. We've had pathetically few scoring options the past couple of years. Has to work hard as hell to get shots often. Focus of defenses, etc
That can change this year, and I'm hoping he's still got it in him to switch it back down.

2) There was NO doubt (in my mind) that Danny was gimpy most of last season. He lit it up at the end of the year when he started feeling better as manifested by actually putting the ball on the floor again and not having to settle for the immediate jumper because he couldn't move worth a darn.

KennerLeaguer
09-11-2010, 07:43 PM
I'm not going to argue further with someone so out of touch with reality that he thinks Carlos Boozer is a low-post god...even in the NBA as a 20/10 player he isn't a low post player. Everything he shoots is a pick and roll jumper of transition layup. You have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, and are inventing reality as you go along.

That's right, K-Stat. Please stop engaging in the conversation if you can't win an argument and must resort to personal attacks. That says EVERYTHING about you. I have felt that your points you made as supposedly the lFIBA-college-NBA expert on this board were kinda nut, but I had class enough not to call you out in an overly negative way. Trust me I wasn't going to keep this up either if you had come up with a reasonable and civilized rebuttal because there is no need for that type of back-n-forth on these boards. But you ended it on a sour note for all of us with your childish response. In the future try coming up with better arguments that don't have holes big enough for Rik Smits to walk through.

As for Boozer, in case you weren't paying attention, IN COLLEGE he was able to post up anyone and score. That was the point me and the other poster were trying to make in regards to how K didn't take advantage of his post play. Sorry that went over your head.

Kstat
09-11-2010, 07:51 PM
Right. Boozer was a low post beast. His low post skills just happened to vanish when he got to the NBA. Magic, I suppose. Maybe it was the evil doing of the terrible coach K?

Calling you out of touch with reality is not a personal attack, nor is it uncivilized. It's just the truth. You have a sad, comical grudge against Mike Krzyzewski, and are going out of your way to criticize him in the the midst of the best coaching job of his career. If that doesn't scream "irrational," I don't know what does....

KennerLeaguer
09-11-2010, 08:04 PM
FYI on Boozer's offensive plays (of which there are a recorded 1,649):

0.1% were as the P&R ball handler (a whopping 1 time ;) )
1.0% were off screens
1.5% were hand offs
5.7% were isolation
7.3% were in transition
7.7% were "all other plays"
8.6% were offensive rebounds
11.2% were spot-ups
13.5% were as the P&R roll man
21.5% were post-ups
22.1% were cuts

Hicks, this is what Major Cold wrote :

Boozer could jave dominated more in the low post at Duke. One of the main reasons why he slipped. After Coach K squandered that he really hasnt got that player on the low block. mcBob is yet another player inable to develop a low post game at Duke. But that is mostly on him and his frame.


And I ended up concuring with him. Nothing he wrote made any mention of what Boozer has done or is doing as a pro. In the NBA Boozer's 6'8 height (at best) and lack of major hops will make it difficult for him to be dominant in the paint. But when he was at Duke he obviously wasn't facing the same level of competition and was able to post folks up and score almost at will. He shot 61%, 60% and 66% during his three seasons at Duke and he shot well above 70% from the free throw line each year at Duke too.

http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/duke/carlos-boozer


In other words he was a true weapon in the paint for the Blue Devils. But K allowed Jason Williams to take stupid three pointers all game long rather than instructing the ball to go into Boozer more. In their final year at Duke when the Blue Devils failed to make it to even the Final Eight it was in part because Jason, a 38% three-point shooter that year, had the green light to launch long jumpers rather than be give the instruction to play like a point guard and get the ball into his big man. Period. This was simply an example that Major Cold was using as evidence of K's disinterest in post play. That's all. As a result a guy like Boozer who, whether K-Stat thinks highly of him or not, has been a very productive player in the NBA ended up falling to the second round of the draft when he has clearly put up lottery like numbers over the years. Many people have felt for years now that if Boozer had been THE focus of that Due offense not only would Duke had won back-to-back championships, Boozer would have been picked in the first round as well. One doesn't have to agree with that theory of course but if you can't come up with nothing more than a hissy fit response worthy of a six year old why even bother posting? I can take K-Stat's points and counter them until the cows come home without ever having to resort to something like that last post he directed at me.

KennerLeaguer
09-11-2010, 08:21 PM
Right. Boozer was a low post beast. His low post skills just happened to vanish when he got to the NBA. Magic, I suppose. Maybe it was the evil doing of the terrible coach K?

Calling you out of touch with reality is not a personal attack, nor is it uncivilized. It's just the truth. You have a sad, comical grudge against Mike Krzyzewski, and are going out of your way to criticize him in the the midst of the best coaching job of his career. If that doesn't scream "irrational," I don't know what does....

Oh, make up your mind already, dude. First you say you have no further point debating me and now you're back again. I guess you just need to have the last word. You seem like that type.

Please keep dismissing anything positive about Boozer's play by being sarcastic. It doesn't do anything to prove your point. And, yes, in case you haven't noticed many undersized forwards had to change their games when they make it to the NBA because they can't get away with the same things they did in college. Its called an adjustment. You may not know this but some high school stars have to make similar adjustments when they move on to college too. It works like that.

And unlike you with Boozer I was once a huge admirer of K. During the Laettner days I felt he was a terrific coach. Unfortunately he later morped into a Rick Pitino clone. Just my opinion. I don't have a grudge against the man (although you appear to have a hard on for him); I simply can't stand the hype that has surrounded hi for the past 12 years. By the way could I argue that you have some unreasonable grudge against Larry Brown? Don't throw around accusations when you aren't immune from incrimination yourself.

Oh, you still weren't able to give a rebuttal to ANY of the points I made earlier this morning, have you? Of course not. Its clear you get your thrills t being the lone expert on all things basketball, particularly FIBA related. The problem with so-called experts is that they tend to not able to take it well when someone has the audacity to challenge their knowledge and authority. That would explain your little rant.

I would ask you to at least get around to providing the 2003 FIBA results for Team USA but you're probably too preoccupied putting up another poster of Coach K in the personal shrine you made for him. Cool. We all gotta have hobbies. But, hey, go ahead and have the last word because there's no more point in wasting board members' times with a never-ending flamewar. Besides you've proven you can no longer write anything that I would think is worthy enough to read. Just one bit of advice…I Team USA wins gold please be dignified enough not to throw yourself at the feet of K when he returns to American soil.

I apologize to the rest of the guys here for my part of this wasteful discussion.

Kstat
09-11-2010, 08:38 PM
1. I rebutted pretty much everything you said. Arguing further is a waste of my time.

2. I don't hate Larry Brown any more than I love coach K. I can't stand Duke. but I'm not so blind that I can't see past my own blinders to recognize one of the best basketball coaches of his generation.

3. The 2003 Tournament of the Americas don't interest me. I know they had a much better team then, just like I know they still managed to bring Tim Duncan to the Olympics the following years and put in a pitiful performance against inferior talent, because their coach could not adjust to FIBA rules, nor could he win his way without vastly superior talent, and insufficient preparation time.

Basically, Krzyzewski is doing everything in 2010 that Larry brown could not do in 2004.

If I took every little irrational post and wrote out paragraph-sized rebuttals, I'd never get any sleep. Arguing that Mike Krzyzewski is not a good coach, or that Carlos Boozer at any level was a fine low post player, is like telling me the sun is green. I don't need a thesis to rebut it, nor is it interesting enough to take seriously.

The final joke is that you're implying that I, a lifelong Pistons fan, have a grudge against Larry Brown, of all people. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot with a bazooka.

You hate coach K. We get it. Just don't pick the one year where he follows up an NCAA Championship with a FIBA World Championship to go on a massive rant about how much he sucks. You're likely to get laughed at.

Peck
09-12-2010, 12:54 AM
http://www.bpwrap.com/wp-content/duty_calls.png

Naptown_Seth
09-12-2010, 03:01 PM
Fixed...
I agree. His defense has fallen way off, his 3PA/FGA ratio is wacko, his 3PA/Gm is outrageous as well.

I think we are getting a reality smack in the face that Danny isn't better than Iggy or Gay.

OTOH, Danny proved that he was a pretty lethal scorer in 08-09. If he could get some support in developing his full game and drop some of the 3PA focus he could still be a better player than Iggy/Gay.

I do agree that the biggest hit for him right now is that he's basically Durant-lite in his overall game which means that his minutes are going to Durant more than they are going to Iggy/Gay. I mean Rondo just had a similar experience.


Then again, Westbrook and Love have both proven their own games during this run and silenced some doubters. Westbrook especially shines here because his number one asset is intangible plays based around his explosiveness/hops/quickness/reaction time.

Major Cold
09-12-2010, 10:44 PM
While I do agree that Coach K can lean heavily toward perimeter, to call him a horrible coach and not efficient is a huge stretch. I have not seen Kenner say that K is horrible, that was stretch.

Coach K has not fallen off his high horse. He just won a title with a perimeter team against another perimeter team. As I recall there really was not a low post scorer that shined bright in the tourney. But it is late.

But when Duke hit the Hans and Mays years they struggled a little.

Listen FIBA is not for low post scorers. The key is prove of that. The physicality is prove of that. The lack of goal tending is prove of that. This has always been a perimeter tournament. Scola is a pick and pop player. When his back is to the bucket even in the NBA you will see him iso 13 feet out.

NOW Boozer was not pick and pop in college to my recollection. The 3-2 motion should utilize the low post and even a high high post. But against zones this offense utilizes a cross court or kick back against collapsing defenders. That is why McBob has a developed passing game. You have to play smart and thorough in this offense.

It is apparent that talking in extremes is the fault. Coach K does not suck (which I have only seen in Kstat's accusations) and Coach K does have some faults. But I will say that he is still the most accomplished and respected college coach since Dean Smith. Wooden spoke highly of him.

He has proud pride to the national team. He should be commended.

jcouts
09-12-2010, 11:39 PM
I haven't read any of the rest of the thread, but I can tell you why Granger isn't getting the PT, from what I saw in the time that he has played in FIBA...

and I like Danny Granger...i really like danny granger and i'm glad he's a pacer.

1. too soft...he dodges contact every chance he can

2. lack of any sort of non-opportunistic purpose on both ends of the floor

if you can't convince me that you should be on the floor, you're definitely not going to convince coach K and his staff.

from what i've observed, danny hasn't done one thing outside of his comfort zone (that i've observed) for team usa (something most of us hoped he would)...and that's what the other guys like rudy and iggy have done and that's why they're playing and he's not...it's as simple as that. rudy played defense like most of us haven't ever seen him play, and iggy adapted his game in ways that we never saw him do in nba play. i can't say the same for danny. he looked the exact same in fiba, if not worse, than he does in nba play.

the saddest part for me is that he didn't do what those guys did...all the other players look like they've grown and expanded, but danny doesn't...i really, really hoped he would leave that comfort zone that he has...but, he just looks like the same ole danny of the past couple of years, who doesn't exert himself on defense, doesn't move any better without the ball, doesn't have any sort of force and doesn't impose his will and doesn't make his teammates better in any way. he's still just an opportunistic player. i wanted that to change.

it's sad, for me, and i've been in pseudo-denial about it for most of the fiba championships. but, it is what it is and that's why he's not playing.

stephen curry and tyson chandler have suffered the same fate...they're doing nothing beyond what they normally do...every other player who's seen significant PT has been going above and beyond what they've done in the nba in some way

D-BONE
09-13-2010, 06:56 AM
Speaking of DG expanding his game, Pacers could sure use some extra D and board work from him. We know he's capable. Playing 3 and in OB's system takes him away from the hoop, but he could still chip in say 6-7 boards a game. It will have to be by committee.

indyblue47
09-13-2010, 08:09 AM
http://espn.go.com/nba/

Something is wrong with this picture??

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2010/0912/nba_a_goldts_576.jpg

tsm612
09-13-2010, 08:41 AM
http://espn.go.com/nba/

Something is wrong with this picture??

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2010/0912/nba_a_goldts_576.jpg

Granger was raised a Jehovah's Witness. They're not allowed to salute the flag, say the pledge of allegiance, sing the national anthem, etc. (I'm assuming you're referring to Granger not putting his hand over his heart during the national anthem.)

Unclebuck
09-13-2010, 09:30 AM
Does anyone else just not care aboput the issue of Granger not getting any minutes for Team USA.

but I do find it interesting that some are blaming Jim O'Brien. LOL

Justin Tyme
09-13-2010, 09:54 AM
Granger was raised a Jehovah's Witness. They're not allowed to salute the flag, say the pledge of allegiance, sing the national anthem, etc. (I'm assuming you're referring to Granger not putting his hand over his heart during the national anthem.)


I'm truly sorry to hear this, and see a picture of Granger not showing allegiance to the USA who he was representing.

I don't care what religion Granger is. BUT he is an AMERICAN representing the USA and if he can't show respect and patriotism by doing the things you mentioned for the the country he is representing on the World Stage then he shouldn't have volunteered for a team representing the USA! Granger KNEW well in advance b4 tryouts started he would be in a position to put his personal beliefs on view when the USA won a medal. If he is that firm in his convictions, then he shouldn't have played to represent the USA.

I'm disappointed in Granger for making this beliefs a possible issue and embarrassment to the USA who he was representing. JMOAA

graphic-er
09-13-2010, 09:56 AM
Does anyone else just not care aboput the issue of Granger not getting any minutes for Team USA.

but I do find it interesting that some are blaming Jim O'Brien. LOL

I do care, he is a better overall player than both Iggy and Gay IMO. But he isn't a jump out of the gym athlete that Coach K wanted. That is probablyone of the reasons Rondo quit the team, he could see the writing on the wall that Coach K wanted the most athletic team he could assemble. Anyone wanna say that Westbrook is a better player than Rondo?

I think Granger was dealt a bad hand, injuring his finger and his shin during the training camp. So he was limited from the get go by the coaching staff to avoid further injury. He was paired up with Chandler down low on defense, who might have been the most underwhelming 7fter in the tournament.

tsm612
09-13-2010, 10:07 AM
I'm truly sorry to hear this, and see a picture of Granger not showing allegiance to the USA who he was representing.

I don't care what religion Granger is. BUT he is an AMERICAN representing the USA and if he can't show respect and patriotism by doing the things you mentioned for the the country he is representing on the World Stage then he shouldn't have volunteered for a team representing the USA! Granger KNEW well in advance b4 tryouts started he would be in a position to put his personal beliefs on view when the USA won a medal. If he is that firm in his convictions, then he shouldn't have played to represent the USA. JMOAA

Wow, not my intention in posting that comment. I'm just pointing out justification as to why he may have acted that way during the anthem. This is ABSOLUTELY going to go down the wrong path, but I will say a couple things on the matter. A person's religious beliefs come first, in any case, whether they can help it or not. It forms the basis for how they view the world. I doubt you would give up a religious belief (if you have one) for your government.

And there is no consensus for the proper way to show patriotism. That's up to each person to decide. There's plenty of people who disagree with the idea of having to pledge allegiance based only on their political views, but can still be very patriotic.

Anyway, this is a conversation I wouldn't mind having. I'm just not sure this is the place. But I'd say all the work Danny put in while representing team USA is enough of a display of patriotism. That's it from me on this. I'm out.

Justin Tyme
09-13-2010, 10:08 AM
Does anyone else just not care aboput the issue of Granger not getting any minutes for Team USA.

but I do find it interesting that some are blaming Jim O'Brien. LOL


No, I don't care about Granger's PT. He deserved what he got.


Granger being a product of Jimmy's system just isn't possible. A coach never influences how players play, right?

Unclebuck
09-13-2010, 10:11 AM
No, I don't care about Granger's PT. He deserved what he got.


Granger being a product of Jimmy's system just isn't possible. A coach never influences how players play, right?

Did I ever say that. A coach does influence. But to blame the coach for Danny's lack of playing time on Team USA is IMO laughable, but to be expected.

d_c
09-13-2010, 10:54 AM
I do care, he is a better overall player than both Iggy and Gay IMO. But he isn't a jump out of the gym athlete that Coach K wanted. That is probablyone of the reasons Rondo quit the team, he could see the writing on the wall that Coach K wanted the most athletic team he could assemble. Anyone wanna say that Westbrook is a better player than Rondo?

I would say that Iggy and Gay had games that better suited what Coach K had in mind for this particular team. FWIW, jump out of gym athletes generally aren't what Coach K recruits at Duke. His ideal player is one that has good bball IQ and is fairly polished, yet not so good enough of a player that he'll jump to the NBA after his freshman year (that way he gets guys for 3-4 years and can build continuity).

This team had better defined roles than probably any USA Team since 98' (right around the NBA lockout when the USA sent a bunch of CBA/journeymen players and surprised everyone with a 3rd place finish).

Chauncey Billups said that Rose, Durant and Tyson Chandler were the only 3 players to play the same role on this team as on their respective NBA teams. And even towards the end of the tournament, Derrick Rose saw his role reduced and Lamar Odom started to resemble the NBA version of himself.

You could see there were very specific roles on the team, something we haven't seen in awhile on a US national team. Durant was the primary go to guy. Iggy and Gay were kind of playing the role Shawn Marion had with Phx or Jerome Kersey had with Portland back in his prime. They would hustle, rebound, disrupt defensively, run the break and finish strong at the basket. They gave up their roles as primary offensive options on their NBA teams in order to do this.

Granger was not as effective at this role as Iggy and Gay. He was still a primary scorer. Problem for him was that Kevin Durant had already usurped this role in a major, major way.

Coach K did what good coaches do: He played to the team's strengths, which in this case were speed and athleticism. Can't exactly argue with the results he got.

d_c
09-13-2010, 10:59 AM
Granger being a product of Jimmy's system just isn't possible. A coach never influences how players play, right?

FWIW, Andre Igoudala has had such powerhouse coaches as JOB (the man himself), Mo Cheeks, Tim DeLeo and Eddie Jordan.

And he managed to play a completely different role on Team USA than he did for his NBA club team, and he did it extremely well.

MLB007
09-13-2010, 11:12 AM
Does anyone else just not care aboput the issue of Granger not getting any minutes for Team USA.

but I do find it interesting that some are blaming Jim O'Brien. LOL

Couldn't care less about him not playing.
Care a whole bunch that he learns something from not playing.
Hope this was a bucket of cold water on the head for Danny.
Wake up and play the WHOLE game. :D :buddies:

MLB007
09-13-2010, 11:13 AM
I'm truly sorry to hear this, and see a picture of Granger not showing allegiance to the USA who he was representing.

I don't care what religion Granger is. BUT he is an AMERICAN representing the USA and if he can't show respect and patriotism by doing the things you mentioned for the the country he is representing on the World Stage then he shouldn't have volunteered for a team representing the USA! Granger KNEW well in advance b4 tryouts started he would be in a position to put his personal beliefs on view when the USA won a medal. If he is that firm in his convictions, then he shouldn't have played to represent the USA.

I'm disappointed in Granger for making this beliefs a possible issue and embarrassment to the USA who he was representing. JMOAA

It's called freedom of religion, and it's one of the reasons that many countries around the world still have some respect for us.
The constitution doesn't end when you step on a basketball court. :)

SMosley21
09-13-2010, 11:22 AM
What makes me sad , is that it seems like Danny is ALWAYS getting overlooked, so to speak..

I mean .. yea it was GREAT when he made his first All Star team , but the accolade felt kinda hollow in how he didn't see the floor much , and never really got a chance to do what he does best out on the floor..

Granger barely played in that All-Star game because of his injury at the time (think it was the knee). There was a chance that he wouldn't play at all.

Bball
09-13-2010, 11:49 AM
Did I ever say that. A coach does influence. But to blame the coach for Danny's lack of playing time on Team USA is IMO laughable, but to be expected.

After 3 years of playing in a system that values offense over defense to the point of allowing defensive liabilities to persist in order to maintain the offense at all costs... A system that expects quick offense and a high percentage of 3 point attempts even if they lead to transition baskets going the other way.... A system that practically begs you to call your shots on defense because so much is expected on offense....

After all of that you expect a player to stop on a dime and buy into a different type of system as well as excel at it? Especially if a player has grown lazy or regressed into that type of system.

There's a big difference in a system that demands defense and pressure first and foremost to get steals and get quick offense that way as opposed to allowing the other team transition 2's so that you can outscore them with 3's...

IMHO The next coach (and please let him be here soon) is going to have a lot of bad habits to break to get these guys back on track and playing 'defense first, winning basketball'. I realize there's another thread talking about O'Brien's recent Q-A and all the 'right' things he's saying. I'll believe it when I see it... I've seen 3 years of him doing the opposite....