PDA

View Full Version : If Danny would put full effort into his defense, how good would it be?



BringJackBack
02-03-2011, 09:03 PM
Simple question and discuss.

I think he could be a Gerald Wallace- caliber defender. Not Ron-esque at all, even though he would have some huge games on that side of the ball.

PacerPenguins
02-03-2011, 09:10 PM
the thing that pisses me off about granger is how he takes his time running back when the other team is on a fast break, he doesnt try!

Psyren
02-03-2011, 09:11 PM
I don't know what player I'd compare him to, but he could be very good.

He has the size and athleticism to defend multiple positions and be a great defensive stopper.

Major Cold
02-03-2011, 09:15 PM
http://pauldunay.com/images/lightning.jpg

PacerDude
02-03-2011, 09:17 PM
Yeah ......... I thought one of his positives WAS his defense. Seems like he's turned into a scorer - well, maybe a shooter - and has let the D slide. That's why he didn't get much time on the USA team - Coach K said his defense wasn't good enough.

And IIRC, he did play pretty good D his first year or so - until he fell in love with the 3-ball. But then, his first year he had Artest here and Ron kind of pushed him - coincidence ?? I think not but I digress ...............

He has the physical tools to be a pretty good defender. Long arms, quick feet ............. but defense is played more by desire than anything else.

So, to answer - he could be pretty dern good if he wanted to and put the effort into it.

BringJackBack
02-03-2011, 09:27 PM
http://pauldunay.com/images/lightning.jpg

:bs:

What in the **** are you talking about? I'm not blaming anything on him, I could have posted this two months ago.. Lightning rod my ***.

..If you're trying to say that I'm blaming the bad defense on Granger than you're sadly mistaken. That would be like me starting a thread asking, "If Jim ran more PnR what would our record be?" It wouldn't make any sense.

For the record, I think we don't win yesterday had Danny not been there for the fourth quarter. Nice try Nostradamus.

:sigh:

AesopRockOn
02-04-2011, 03:27 AM
I don't think he's as talented on defense as some posters make him out to be.

gummy
02-04-2011, 03:53 AM
Not quite sure what "full effort" means. People do have limited stamina, and I don't think Danny can be 100% dialed in on the defensive end and also deliver 20+ points night in and night out. The ability to do that regularly and/or on command is part of what separates the elite from the very good in this league and Danny's ceiling is below elite.

That said, I suspect that if he played consistently good (not even great, because he's probably not capable of that, just good with bursts of very good) defense and his scoring dropped a bit it would be a net gain for the team. Collision has stepped up his scoring, George can score, Hibbert can score if he can get completely back on track. Hans and Dun are going to contribute some points, albeit somewhat inconsistently. I'm interested to see how Rush performs in the post-JOB era (I think he basically is what he is but there's a chance he'll improve a bit). So maybe we don't need Danny going for 20+. I'm not sure yet, but if I were Coach V I would certainly try selling Danny on the idea of returning to his early season defense.

Major Cold
02-04-2011, 09:18 AM
Alright. But I assure you with PG getting the press and DG not. He is and will be the next JO.

Bball
02-04-2011, 10:00 AM
Alright. But I assure you with PG getting the press and DG not. He is and will be the next JO.

Overrated and overpaid diva who never lived up to his promise or hype?

jcouts
02-04-2011, 01:32 PM
defensively, I think Danny should strive for something more along the lines of James Worthy, circa 1987-1989.

offensively, Paul Pierce.

ksuttonjr76
02-04-2011, 01:47 PM
2.0 BPG and 1.5 SPG...

Personally, I rather have 3 solid defenders in the backcourt, instead of just one great defender.

Major Cold
02-04-2011, 01:55 PM
Overrated and overpaid diva who never lived up to his promise or hype?

He was a diva, but the issue at hand is that we all try to find the reason for failure in a singular source. Rick>JO>Murphy>JOB>Danny now.

Failure is shared.

Dukins
02-04-2011, 02:15 PM
If Danny had a killer instinct in any bone in his body, how good would he be? Kevin Durantesque! :eek::D

Eleazar
02-04-2011, 03:43 PM
Not quite sure what "full effort" means. People do have limited stamina, and I don't think Danny can be 100% dialed in on the defensive end and also deliver 20+ points night in and night out. The ability to do that regularly and/or on command is part of what separates the elite from the very good in this league and Danny's ceiling is below elite.


I don't buy into this you can only be good at one side of the ball crap. If you aren't capable of giving 100% at both ends of the court for 30+ minutes you shouldn't be playing 30+ minutes until you have worked up the stamina to play 30+ minutes. I would rather have a Granger who gave it all on both ends of the court for only 20 minutes a game than one who only gives a crap on the offensive side for 36 minutes a game.

cdash
02-04-2011, 04:31 PM
Yeah, I think BJB and I have had this conversation in another thread. Not only has Danny's intensity level on the defensive end dropped from the beginning of the season, but his willingness to drive to the hoop and not settle for contested jump shots has seemingly gone down as well. I don't know if he is preserving his body (he's been amazingly healthy this year) or what, but this team's success depends largely on him. If he brings it on both ends of the court and busts his butt, the other players (most of them impressionable younger guys) will look up to him and feed off his example. We need to him to play the defense he's capable of playing, and we need him to be a good leader for our younger guys. He and Roy Hibbert are our two most important players, as far as success is concerned.

gummy
02-04-2011, 04:41 PM
I don't buy into this you can only be good at one side of the ball crap. If you aren't capable of giving 100% at both ends of the court for 30+ minutes you shouldn't be playing 30+ minutes until you have worked up the stamina to play 30+ minutes. I would rather have a Granger who gave it all on both ends of the court for only 20 minutes a game than one who only gives a crap on the offensive side for 36 minutes a game.

Well it's not necessary to buy into it since it is not what I said! Nowhere in there did I say that a player can only be good at one side of the ball. I am puzzled as to how you extracted that from my words - the only thing I would change in that first paragraph would be to add that players not only have different levels of stamina, but there are also differences in athletic ability and mental focus that will necessarily impact how good they are overall. So let me try and re-state my argument.

I said that an ability to be consistently very good on both sides of the ball is part of what separates the elite from the good to very good players in the NBA. I also said I do not believe Danny has the physical tools and mental fortitude to be one of those elite players. However, I think he can focus more on the defensive end, improve, and become consistently good to very good on that end but I also suspect that his scoring average would drop a bit as a result. I did not say that if he improved his defense he would suck at offense. Let me say state that again - saying that his offensive production might decrease a bit is not the same as saying Danny would no longer be able to function offensively. It's not even close. So the position you are disagreeing with is much more extreme than the one I articulated. Please re-read what I said, thank-you.

presto123
02-04-2011, 04:56 PM
Well it's not necessary to buy into it since it is not what I said! Nowhere in there did I say that a player can only be good at one side of the ball. I am puzzled as to how you extracted that from my words - the only thing I would change in that first paragraph would be to add that players not only have different levels of stamina, but there are also differences in athletic ability and mental focus that will necessarily impact how good they are overall. So let me try and re-state my argument.

I said that an ability to be consistently very good on both sides of the ball is part of what separates the elite from the good to very good players in the NBA. I also said I do not believe Danny has the physical tools and mental fortitude to be one of those elite players. However, I think he can focus more on the defensive end, improve, and become consistently good to very good on that end but I also suspect that his scoring average would drop a bit as a result. I did not say that if he improved his defense he would suck at offense. Let me say state that again - saying that his offensive production might decrease a bit is not the same as saying Danny would no longer be able to function offensively. It's not even close. So the position you are disagreeing with is much more extreme than the one I articulated. Please re-read what I said, thank-you.



I still disagree. His offense shouldn't suffer at all if he's in game shape for the season. These guys get paid mega-money to give that effort on Both sides of the ball. I see his lack of hustle for one thing a lot and there is no excuse for that. Kobe plays great defense And offense and plays a ton of minutes. It's a mindset more than anything and our guys have to get back to realizing just how far defense can go to get wins. But I'm not putting it all on Granger. A lot of our guys need to step up their defense and hustle.

PacersPride
02-04-2011, 05:04 PM
I think Danny Granger is in the mold of Scottie Pippen. Maybe its because they have similar mechanics to some degree, atheliticm, and form.

I am not a believer that Pippen was a great player, anyone MJ had next to him was going to appear better than he really was.

only i think Granger is naturally a little better offensively, and slighty worse defensively than Pippen.

pacer4ever
02-04-2011, 05:06 PM
I think Danny Granger is in the mold of Scottie Pippen. Maybe its because they have similar mechanics to some degree, atheliticm, and form.

I am not a believer that Pippen was a great player, anyone MJ had next to him was going to appear better than he really was.

only i think Granger is naturally a little better offensively, and slighty worse defensively than Pippen.

:wtf2:

xBulletproof
02-04-2011, 05:16 PM
I am not a believer that Pippen was a great player, anyone MJ had next to him was going to appear better than he really was.

You're kidding right? The year Jordan retired to play baseball, Pippen didn't have Jordan, right? Pippen still averaged 22 points, 8.7 rebounds, 5.6 assists, and 2.9 steals.

Oh, and the Bulls still won 55 games. The year before with Jordan they won 57.

Pippen is so freaking far beyond Granger it's not even funny.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=58098

gummy
02-04-2011, 05:21 PM
I still disagree. His offense shouldn't suffer at all if he's in game shape for the season. These guys get paid mega-money to give that effort on Both sides of the ball. I see his lack of hustle for one thing a lot and there is no excuse for that. Kobe plays great defense And offense and plays a ton of minutes. It's a mindset more than anything and our guys have to get back to realizing just how far defense can go to get wins. But I'm not putting it all on Granger. A lot of our guys need to step up their defense and hustle.

That's cool. I definitely agree that Danny could hustle more and that there is no excuse for not trying harder on the defensive end. I also agree that given a certain baseline of physical tools, defense is mostly mental (although some extraordinary physical gifts can make the difference between a really good defender and an elite level defender). Where I disagree is that I am not sure Danny has all the tools to play at an elite level on both sides of the ball - I think he could be pretty good but not great, which is why I expect that his offensive production might drop a bit if he were to dedicate himself to defense. Your referencing of Kobe ties in well to my argument - that the ability to be very good on both sides of the ball consistently is what separates the good from the great.

But I do appreciate your taking the time to disagree with what I actually said rather than argue with a caricature of what I said. :D

SMosley21
02-04-2011, 05:23 PM
:uhoh:


I think Danny Granger is in the mold of Scottie Pippen. Maybe its because they have similar mechanics to some degree, atheliticm, and form.

I am not a believer that Pippen was a great player, anyone MJ had next to him was going to appear better than he really was.

only i think Granger is naturally a little better offensively, and slighty worse defensively than Pippen.

This thread just took a turn towards the ridiculous.

Mackey_Rose
02-04-2011, 05:28 PM
He was a diva, but the issue at hand is that we all try to find the reason for failure in a singular source. Rick>JO>Murphy>JOB>Danny now.

Failure is shared.

Can you honestly say that you believe Granger fully exerts himself on the defensive end?

gummy
02-04-2011, 05:29 PM
I think Danny Granger is in the mold of Scottie Pippen. Maybe its because they have similar mechanics to some degree, atheliticm, and form.

I am not a believer that Pippen was a great player, anyone MJ had next to him was going to appear better than he really was.

only i think Granger is naturally a little better offensively, and slighty worse defensively than Pippen.

Wow. Huh. I think Pippen is one of the best defensive players I've seen play the game (I've been watching since the end of the Bird-Magic era). He's a 10 time All-Defensive First Team guy. I can buy the argument that MJ's presence and talent might have made Pippen a better offensive player simply because of all the attention Jordan commanded on offense (though as has been stated, Pippen alone still put up really good offensive numbers). But Pippen was a beast on the defensive end because of his physical tools - length and athleticism - and his focus and desire. He was great at it all - man to man (perimeter and interior), playing the passing lanes, help defense, steals and deflections, even blocked shots and charges. There's a crap ton of quotes out there from a variety of other NBA players gushing about Pippen's defense and the big role it played in the Bulls' success and of course there is a lot of game footage out there too. I've no time to dig all that up though, so I'll leave it for someone else to fetch.

But I'm a little flabbergasted by these statements. I'm a Pacers fan through and through and I'm glad to have Danny on our team. But Scottie Pippen was a much, much better defensive player than Danny has shown himself to be thus far and he was a better shooter (overall - Danny shoots a better 3pt percentage) and scorer than Danny. I like Danny a lot. But he has not performed on a level that would make me say he's close to being as good as Scottie Pippen overall on offense or defense.

rm1369
02-04-2011, 05:30 PM
I think Danny Granger is in the mold of Scottie Pippen. Maybe its because they have similar mechanics to some degree, atheliticm, and form.

I am not a believer that Pippen was a great player, anyone MJ had next to him was going to appear better than he really was.

only i think Granger is naturally a little better offensively, and slighty worse defensively than Pippen.

Pippen was a significantly better player than anyone the NBA Pacers have ever had. DG is not even close to a poor man's Pippen. He may have a somewhat similar body, but DG is nowhere near Pippen's skill level. It's not even close.

BringJackBack
02-04-2011, 05:44 PM
Consider me shocked as well.. No one, and I mean NO ONE on this team has as much potential or skill defensively as Pippen had in his big toe.

PacersPride
02-04-2011, 05:52 PM
Sorry, Pippen is a good player and one helluva a defensive specialist. However, put Jordan on this pacers team and what is the difference really? Cartwright was not great, Ho Grant was good, and normally the bulls point was anything special, ehlo, paxson, hodges.. the bulls were built around Jordan, and Pippen was his sidekick.

Granger would likely put up similar numbers if you add Jordan to this pacers team roster. Pippen was the man in portland and he did not put up great numbers with less skilled players around him.

points wise pippens career average was 16, likely what granger will have if not higher. when 2-3 players are focusing on you defensively its a helluva lot easier for other players to score. seriously, think about it.

in regard to the year pippen was w/o jordan, just less offensive weapons and pippen had to score like granger here. pippen put up on average about 2 more 3's a game w/o jordan than with. and pippen is not a good 3 pt shooter at all.

i think jordans game blossommed at the beginning of his career w/ MJ. Grangers will blossom onward and even moreso w/ an infusion of talent.

Pippen was a helluva defensive player, and granger is no where near pippens prowess at this point in time, but the question was what is grangers potential right..

well his potential is to be as good as pippen, which is still damn good but i thnk pippen was overrated.

read the topic again, if granger put full effort in, which means many things, i think he could almost get to pippens level. however, i stand convicted granger is a better offensive player, or at least will be by the time his career is over.

PacersPride
02-04-2011, 05:58 PM
Consider me shocked as well.. No one, and I mean NO ONE on this team has as much potential or skill defensively as Pippen had in his big toe.

some of you are overreatcing a little to my comment, in addition i think your overrating pippen.

i saw the guy play, he was never a lebron or kobe, he was a good #2 if not great #2 option with stellar defensive abilities.

i truthfully believe grangers offensive game is slightly better than pippens, or will be with the right coaching and talent around him.

again, pippen was very good, but not great.

PacersPride
02-04-2011, 06:02 PM
Hmmm. This is starting to remind me of the infamous Brandon Rush is not a good 3pt shooter thread. I think I'm going to retire back to lurking rather than get sucked into that kind of cluster****. lol.

you brought it up man. it was rush is an "inconsistent 3 pt shooter" by the way. the day rush starts making meaningful 3's on a consistent basis, he might be worthy of a starting positon.

now what i meant to say was, rush is an inconsistent shooter, but since he primarily shoots 3's, i just simplified and stated inconsistent from beyond the arc.

i got crucified for that BS, and look at rush, typical inconsistent shooting from him all season long.

* his numbers may compare to Reggies, but he will never be a knock down cold blooded assassain like Miller was. to me, one aspect of consistency is making shots when it matters most, and rush has never given any reason to believe he is clutch. not sure i even trust him at the free throw line if we needed 2.

BringJackBack
02-04-2011, 06:04 PM
some of you are overreatcing a little to my comment, in addition i think your overrating pippen.

i saw the guy play, he was never a lebron or kobe, he was a good #2 if not great #2 option with stellar defensive abilities.

i truthfully believe grangers offensive game is slightly better than pippens, or will be with the right coaching and talent around him.

again, pippen was very good, but not great.

I strongly disagree. More and more that I think about it, I almost want to say that Pippen is a longer and taller Dwyane Wade.. If he wanted to, he could have averaged 25 ppg for his career had he needed to. Pippen's defense is comparable to Ron Ron's in his prime with the passing ability of an Andre Igoudala. There's a reason he's a top 50 player of all time IMO.

Danny will NOT ever average 20 ppg on a championship team. I love Danny when he's playing smart, but there's no way even if the burden is off of him.

PacersPride
02-04-2011, 06:12 PM
I strongly disagree. More and more that I think about it, I almost want to say that Pippen is a longer and taller Dwyane Wade.. If he wanted to, he could have averaged 25 ppg for his career had he needed to. Pippen's defense is comparable to Ron Ron's in his prime with the passing ability of an Andre Igoudala. There's a reason he's a top 50 player of all time IMO.

Danny will NOT ever average 20 ppg on a championship team. I love Danny when he's playing smart, but there's no way even if the burden is off of him.

I respect your opinion, and everyone else as well. however, i still will disagree, MJ was the best basketball player I will ever see play the game in my lifetime.

The man could have won 8 rings easily and maybe ten had he not retired the 2nd time. unheard of in our day. with jordan the bulls were great, without jordan they were one of several good teams.

the impact Jordan had on the bulls was much like the impact Manning has on colts wrs. im not so sure harrison is a HOF player, or wayne, clark, without Manning.

Jordan made bad players average, average players good, and good players great.

Freddie fan
02-04-2011, 06:21 PM
I don't buy into this you can only be good at one side of the ball crap. If you aren't capable of giving 100% at both ends of the court for 30+ minutes you shouldn't be playing 30+ minutes until you have worked up the stamina to play 30+ minutes. I would rather have a Granger who gave it all on both ends of the court for only 20 minutes a game than one who only gives a crap on the offensive side for 36 minutes a game.

Yes, if Danny is too tired to play good defense, they need to take him out of the game. You need your best player to set an example and give a high level of effort on the defensive end. If he doesn't, it's going to be more difficult to get a good level of effort defensively from your other players.

Hicks
02-04-2011, 09:03 PM
I know Kobe wasn't as good defensively in the years between Shaq and Gasol. He had to put most of his energy into scoring the ball, and his defense suffered a bit because of it. If Kobe can't do both without a lot of help, I won't begrudge anyone else.

PacersPride
02-04-2011, 11:33 PM
I may have been off base then on the comments comparing Grangers D (at his best) to Pippen. I certainly am not denying Pippen was a great defensive player. but offensively he and Granger are on the same level.

I still think Jordan played a large role in Pippens success. No one is even in Jordans stratosphere.. not Bird, Magic, Shaq, LeBron.. Jordan was Jesus in sneakers pretty much.

Look at Rondo, he will be a HOF player most likely when his career is done, but had he been drafted by the Pacers would he be a 3 time all star (or more).. going to a team with Allen, KG, and Pierce helped him become the percieved great point gaurd he is today.

nevertheless, Jordan was supernatural on the court.

pacer4ever
02-04-2011, 11:39 PM
I may have been off base then on the comments comparing Grangers D (at his best) to Pippen. I certainly am not denying Pippen was a great defensive player. but offensively he and Granger are on the same level.

I still think Jordan played a large role in Pippens success. No one is even in Jordans stratosphere.. not Bird, Magic, Shaq, LeBron.. Jordan was Jesus in sneakers pretty much.

Look at Rondo, he will be a HOF player most likely when his career is done, but had he been drafted by the Pacers would he be a 3 time all star (or more).. going to a team with Allen, KG, and Pierce helped him become the percieved great point gaurd he is today.

nevertheless, Jordan was supernatural on the court.

Please Bird and Magic helped his teammates more than Jordan.

BringJackBack
02-04-2011, 11:39 PM
I think Danny's defense was very good tonight.

Major Cold
02-04-2011, 11:40 PM
Can you honestly say that you believe Granger fully exerts himself on the defensive end?
Am I arguing that?

Can you honestly say that Danny is the only problem on the team? It is time to stop simplifying our issues. Polarization is the real issue.

PacersPride
02-04-2011, 11:43 PM
Please Bird and Magic helped his teammates more than Jordan.

from the standpoint of unselfishness, yes. but the best basketball player i have ever seen play was MJ. LEGEND is my favorite player all-time, but if there is one player i can choose to have on my team, its Jordan.

Taterhead
02-05-2011, 01:09 AM
Please Bird and Magic helped his teammates more than Jordan.

Magic and Bird both got more help from their supporting cast and accomplished less.

As far as Danny's defense it could be very good. The problem I have with him is consistency. He is so inconsistent in the effort department. And I don't want that from my "franchise" player.

pacer4ever
02-05-2011, 01:13 AM
Magic and Bird both got more help from their supporting cast and accomplished less.

As far as Danny's defense it could be very good. The problem I have with him is consistency. He is so inconsistent in the effort department. And I don't want that from my "franchise" player.

I think if you would have put Bird with medicore talent he would have aved a triple double but u cant go wrong with Jordan or Bird or Magic.

Eleazar
02-05-2011, 10:18 AM
Well it's not necessary to buy into it since it is not what I said! Nowhere in there did I say that a player can only be good at one side of the ball. I am puzzled as to how you extracted that from my words - the only thing I would change in that first paragraph would be to add that players not only have different levels of stamina, but there are also differences in athletic ability and mental focus that will necessarily impact how good they are overall. So let me try and re-state my argument.

I said that an ability to be consistently very good on both sides of the ball is part of what separates the elite from the good to very good players in the NBA. I also said I do not believe Danny has the physical tools and mental fortitude to be one of those elite players. However, I think he can focus more on the defensive end, improve, and become consistently good to very good on that end but I also suspect that his scoring average would drop a bit as a result. I did not say that if he improved his defense he would suck at offense. Let me say state that again - saying that his offensive production might decrease a bit is not the same as saying Danny would no longer be able to function offensively. It's not even close. So the position you are disagreeing with is much more extreme than the one I articulated. Please re-read what I said, thank-you.

I think I need to clarify what I was arguing against. I wasn't arguing against your individual post, I was arguing against the predominant mind set it is acceptable and even expected for one side of a players game to suffer because he is putting more effort into the other side. Your post was just a catalyst, but I worded it the way I did because I was arguing against the idea that many people believe not your directly at your post.

Mackey_Rose
02-05-2011, 02:00 PM
Am I arguing that?

Can you honestly say that Danny is the only problem on the team? It is time to stop simplifying our issues. Polarization is the real issue.

No you weren't arguing anything. You were complaining about something that I would consider just criticism. So I was wondering if you also found the criticism justified, or just think that Granger is above any and all criticism, just or otherwise.

There hasn't been one person say that Danny is the only problem. Not one. You are the only person, in this thread, to even suggest it. The original poster was simply asking a valid question, and everyone else was responding in kind.

The polarization was started by you.

gummy
02-05-2011, 06:09 PM
I think I need to clarify what I was arguing against. I wasn't arguing against your individual post, I was arguing against the predominant mind set it is acceptable and even expected for one side of a players game to suffer because he is putting more effort into the other side. Your post was just a catalyst, but I worded it the way I did because I was arguing against the idea that many people believe not your directly at your post.

Well, that's good to know, thank-you. Since you did that by literally replying to part of my post instead of creating a standalone comment, I naturally assumed that you were replying to me and felt the need to clarify what I said a result.