PDA

View Full Version : Danny at the four?



spazzxb
02-02-2011, 10:16 PM
Vogal has done away with all small ball and held true to his pledge to use Josh and Tyler for all the minutes at the four. I don't recall him mixing up the lineups at all, which isn't a necessarily a bad thing. However prior to the new coach our most effective lineup was the small ball lineup with Danny at the four. Consistent rotations are good for player development however we just about lost to Cleveland. Does anyone else think it is unwise to completely abandon utilizing Danny at the 4?

LetsTalkPacers
02-02-2011, 10:20 PM
no

pacer4ever
02-02-2011, 10:22 PM
JOB is that you??

sportfireman
02-02-2011, 10:23 PM
Vogal has done away with all small ball and held true to his pledge to use Josh and Tyler for all the minutes at the four. I don't recall him mixing up the lineups at all, which isn't a necessarily a bad thing. However prior to the new coach our most effective lineup was the small ball lineup with Danny at the four. Consistent rotations are good for player development however we just about lost to Cleveland. Does anyone else think it is unwise to completely abandon utilizing Danny at the 4?

I myself like the traditional lineup better than small ball lineups. I think once the players are used to the consistency of knowing what their roles on the floor will be I think we will perform better. Give them some time. It's only been two games...... be patient.

ilive4sports
02-02-2011, 10:25 PM
Using small ball is a very, very situational thing. I didn't think the offense was absolutely terrible at any time tonight, especially in any way that Danny at the 4 would have helped. Defense was the problem tonight.

TheDon
02-02-2011, 10:26 PM
Not a redickulous thought?

Marlin
02-02-2011, 10:26 PM
Honestly, I agree. I'm not a fan of small ball or stretch 4s, but for short periods of time it can be useful.

We grew to hate it because it was used too much, but here and there it isn't necessarily a bad thing at all.

spazzxb
02-02-2011, 10:28 PM
I myself like the traditional lineup better than small ball lineups. I think once the players are used to the consistency of knowing what their roles on the floor will be I think we will perform better. Give them some time. It's only been two games...... be patient.

I understand giving it some time. I just am curious what other people think. I think there is the possibility that we could loose some games because of abandoning it, however longterm I also see benefits.

spazzxb
02-02-2011, 10:32 PM
It wasn't really a certain situation, I just kinda get a feeling that the coach is committed to running Tyler and Josh at the 4 100% of the time.


Using small ball is a very, very situational thing. I didn't think the offense was absolutely terrible at any time tonight, especially in any way that Danny at the 4 would have helped. Defense was the problem tonight.

Trophy
02-02-2011, 10:37 PM
No and I think Danny is happy to just be a 3.

PacerGuy
02-02-2011, 10:43 PM
I think we need to know what we have in Tyler/ McBob before the year is up.
Situationally, esp. when we can play P.George @ 3, & B.Rush @ 2, then yeah, I could go w/ that.
But... only for spots.
Also IMO, McBob or Foster is the 5 to play in that lineup, but not Roy.

(if we were winning & not so resistent to anything "JO'B", this would be looked at more favorably, but the fan base is not ready for anything that reminds then of JO'B, even if it's the right thing to do.)

Unclebuck
02-02-2011, 10:45 PM
I like the way Frank is using a "regular rotation" But if I were the coach there would be times when I would play Danny at the four in order to either match up defensively or to change things up offensively. JOB used it way too much. I would rather Frank be open to the idea and to use it sparingly but to use it.

but I am a proponent of using a regular rotation. And what I mean is take players out in the same order most of the time and bring them back in in the same order most of the time. For example 3 minutes left in the first quarter time to bring in George and i would generally do that every game in each half. I also would look to play certain players with other certain players to build on court chemistry

BlueNGold
02-02-2011, 10:45 PM
I think this is a very difficult question. Against some teams I would say no way. Other matchups it works.

I have liked Danny at the 4 in some situations simply because we had a better wing in Brandon Rush than any PF available. I'm not sure that's true with Tyler. Again, very difficult question but I do think that Danny at the 4 is never going to be anything but a stop-gap measure.

Sookie
02-02-2011, 10:49 PM
I think this is a very difficult question. Against some teams I would say no way. Other matchups it works.

I have liked Danny at the 4 in some situations simply because we had a better wing in Brandon Rush than any PF available. I'm not sure that's true with Tyler. Again, very difficult question but I do think that Danny at the 4 is never going to be anything but a stop-gap measure.

I agree completely. Although I think it's important to just get some consistency with this team before we get into experimenting a bit.

jeffg-body
02-02-2011, 10:51 PM
I personally don't like it for extended minutes, but would be ok if the situation came up where Danny could exploit their 4 and still be able to defend their 4 in the post. I think with time both Josh and Tyler can be good, but I still would look to go for a premium 4 to play next to Roy.

gummy
02-03-2011, 12:23 AM
For the most part I think a more traditional lineup is warranted, but there are situations where it could make sense to play Danny at the 4. I think it's clear from Coach V's comments and actions thus far that he wants to stick with Tyler and Josh for the most part at 4, but that doesn't mean he'll never, ever go small. To my knowledge no one has asked him whether or not he thinks there are scenarios where Danny at the 4 makes sense, and two games isn't a big enough sample size for us to know that about him either.

maragin
02-03-2011, 01:26 AM
I like Danny at the 4 if everyone on the other team that is over 6'7" fouls out.

CableKC
02-03-2011, 03:42 AM
Granger at the 4 should be used on a situational basis....as many have suggested...to change things up offensively if we stall....if McBob and Hansbrough are getting burned by a smaller and quicker lineup at the 4 spot...but other then that....I'd prefer to go with a traditional PF/C lineup. I think that most here are saying that it's a useful option to go with BUT ONLY if the situation calls for it....not ( as UB suggested ) to be used on a regular basis.

Bball
02-03-2011, 05:23 AM
Danny is going to have to start playing better or I'm not sure there's a position on the floor we're going to want to see him playing.

I didn't get to see Monday's game but against Cleveland Granger didn't look like the player most of us thought he was going to be. He doesn't even look like the player he was just a couple of years ago. Maybe Danny is just going to have a harder time readjusting without a greenlight to chuck away.

15th parallel
02-03-2011, 07:18 AM
Danny is going to have to start playing better or I'm not sure there's a position on the floor we're going to want to see him playing.

I didn't get to see Monday's game but against Cleveland Granger didn't look like the player most of us thought he was going to be. He doesn't even look like the player he was just a couple of years ago. Maybe Danny is just going to have a harder time readjusting without a greenlight to chuck away.

He played sloppy one the first 3 quarters, but he was the one to the rescue on the final minutes of the game. He made 9 points, including 2 clutch free throws, and an assist to a wide open Collison for the dagger. It was just a little exaggerated by some that his play is horrific.

As for Danny at the 4, it depends on the matchups. With athletic but not so bulky bigs, he can play good defense and can easily score from midrange and long range. With him at the 4 the previous season, he was successful against Garnett and Amare on both ends. But with bulky and strong PFs, he may have a hard time covering them if they're one of the scoring options. But he can be effective if those PFs are not good at scoring, and he may help draw fouls to put his matchup into foul trouble.

Pacers4Life
02-03-2011, 10:04 AM
No and I think Danny is happy to just be a 3.

Danny is a child and I wish he would grow into a man.

"Spot mins at the 4 spot? You want me to go bang a little bit? Sure thing Coach, I'd LOVE to (lord knows my shots not fallin at too high a clip right now...)."

Speed
02-03-2011, 10:15 AM
JMac's numbers dont' show it, but he did a great job in crunch time on Clevelands best player Jamison, imo. I have no desire to play Danny there on a regular basis, ever.

Danny played the 4 for 10 seconds yesterday, the last 10 seconds, but it wasn't in place of JMac, it was in place of Roy. That made sense, since there wasn't a center who could score on the floor or on Clevelands roster for that matter.

I give Vogel credit, he's stuck with Roy in crunch time and the starting 5. It's just something that would have never happened, previously. I'm sad that these guys are just now, learning to close, as a group and you're getting progress, but still mistakes. It would have been nice to have this continuity 2 months ago, so you could work out the kinks. All history now.

One a side note, if they play with the 6-8 minutes gaps in production at both ends of the floor, against even decent teams, they'll get killed.

Hopefully, this is part of the process in getting a group comfortable to close, which is maybe the most important part of a regular season NBA game.

Lastly, Danny really struggled except for the 4th quarter. I hope he turns the corner, soon. His poor play the last 7 of 8 quarters is pretty obvious to me and it will start to hurt the team against even .500 teams. I think he's pressing too much and he needs to trust the other guys more, we'll see.

LA_Confidential
02-03-2011, 11:04 AM
No to Danny at the four. We need another BIG. Tyler is our back up Pf. Josh should be our back up C. Sick of Jeff Foster.

BRushWithDeath
02-03-2011, 11:17 AM
I miss Danny Granger at the 4 as much as Tyler misses JOB.