PDA

View Full Version : Danny Can Be a #1 Guy in the NBA



naptownmenace
03-02-2011, 11:50 AM
Notice the title of this thread is not a question but a statement.

IMHO, Danny has the ability to be a "number 1 guy" not in the mold of a Lebron, Wade, Kobe, or Rose but in the mold of a Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Joe Johnson type of key player.

I'll admit that for most of this season he hasn't played as consistently as the aforementioned players. A lot of that has to do with the former coach letting him jack up more 3-pointers than free throws. Under Vogel he has been attacking the basket more. His rebounding, assists, and free throw attempts are up as well. Those are the key areas that were lacking from his game... preventing him from being a "number 1 guy".

However, I think that many of us have different opinions on what makes a player a "number 1 guy" on a good team. Some think it just means being a leader. Others say the player has to be able to take over a game in the clutch. Others say it to mean that this guy is a superstar that wins championships/Finals MVP guys. The phrase really needs defining.

Let's look at the key ingredients for being a "number 1 guy".

1. The player is the best player on the team.
2. The player is considered to be the leader/go-to guy of the team.
3. The player is hard to guard and consistently gets to the free throw line.
4. The player has the ability to elevate the play of his teammates.
5. The player is an exceptional scorer for his position.
6. The player is an above average rebounder for his position.
7. The player can step up his defensive intensity/make key stops when the game is on the line.
8. The player can consistently score or assist others to score during the clutch.
9. As the talent level around him increases, so does his assists and efficiency.
10. The player can create his own shot.


With those traits in mind, I think that Danny Granger is close to being a #1 on a good team. He's shown many more of these traits during the last 15 games under Coach Vogel.

The areas he needs to improve upon are his ability to score or assist others to score during the clutch. I don't just mean taking the last shot of the game. This would include points scored, free throws made, and assists gained during the fourth quarter. This doesn't have to happen every single game but it needs to improve to the point where on average he is a known fouth quarter performer, particularly during close games. The Golden State game is a very good example of him being able to step into the role of being a "number 1 guy". He just now needs to do it consistently and he needs to have the ball in his hands during the fourth quarter.

That takes me to the next area that he needs to improve - ball handling and the ability to create his own shot. He needs to be more more decisive with the ball in his hands. He needs to be able to catch and drive more often. He's at his best when he does this. During a close game, his mentality should be to drive and either score on a layup or get to the free throw line. I've noticed him doing this more often during the new coaching regime but to really become the player he CAN be, he needs to do it every game whether it succeeds or not (some nights the refs will swallow the whistle, the opponent will be great defensively, or his shots simply won't fall). Either way, if he can develop this aspect of the game, good things will happen for the Pacers.

One last area of improvement might be one he has limited control over - improving the play of his teammates. We probably really won't know how good Danny Granger really is until the talent level of his teammates really improves, either through player development or roster upgrades. At any rate, during the present, he needs to help Roy and whoever is on the court with him improve their level of play. In 7 of the past 15 games he's had 2 or less assists and he's only averaging 2.7 assists on the season. That's not going to cut it in the long run and this is probably the biggest knock on him and why people say he's not an elite-level player. He has the ability but he's woefully inconsistent in this area.

For those that say Danny will never be more than a solid #2 on a contending team, I think that you are selling him short. I think that he can be a number 1 player but he needs some improvement. I happen to think he can improve given the proper coaching, motivation, and experience. I think he's just now starting to get that from coach Vogel. Only time will tell if I'm right but I think the Pacers should add talent around him and wait and see.

ColeTheMole
03-02-2011, 11:54 AM
He has been clutch in the fourth quarter of recent games. Period.

BRushWithDeath
03-02-2011, 11:56 AM
Absolutely not.

naptownmenace
03-02-2011, 11:58 AM
Absolutely not.

Even if he improves in the 3 areas I highlighted in the OP? I didn't say I think he is one right now. Emphasis should be on whether or not he CAN become that type of player.

Hicks
03-02-2011, 12:01 PM
I could only seriously consider it if he flipped a switch in his brain and gave 100% effort on defense at all times. He just doesn't seem like he'll ever do that.

vnzla81
03-02-2011, 12:11 PM
Yes and No, yes if you want to be a team like the pacers and never make the playoffs and No if you don't want to be like the pacers make the playoffs and compete for championship.

BRushWithDeath
03-02-2011, 12:17 PM
Even if he improves in the 3 areas I highlighted in the OP? I didn't say I think he is one right now. Emphasis should be on whether or not he CAN become that type of player.

The things he needs to improve on, namely shot selection, ball handling, and effort, are the same things he's needed to improve on for the last 4 years. I don't think those lightbulbs are suddenly going to light up. He's done improving in my opinion.

When is the last time an established player's ball handling or passing drastically improved? I can't think of any.

jcouts
03-02-2011, 12:21 PM
The only way I would even consider considering him as a #1 type of player is if he devoted more time and energy to defense...a lot more time and energy. On top of what you mention, his defense is a glaring weakness right now, not because he doesn't have the ability, but because he doesn't seem to put any priority or devotion towards it...which is even worse, in my opinion.

Paul Pierce, Joe Johnson and Ray Allen are all much better defenders than Danny. He didn't put any priority on it in the Olympics and didn't see much time on the court as a result. If he doesn't step it up in that notch in that department, the best he can hope for is an Adrian Dantley type of reputation.

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 12:26 PM
The things he needs to improve on, namely shot selection, ball handling, and effort, are the same things he's needed to improve on for the last 4 years. I don't think those lightbulbs are suddenly going to light up. He's done improving in my opinion.

When is the last time an established player's ball handling or passing drastically improved? I can't think of any.

I guess you have to define established. Is that just a tenure thing or is it also a production thing? I mean Billups had been in the league for a while before he suddenly got a lot better in Detroit.

Anyway, I'd have to say, No. But that's not a huge knock on Danny. How many true number 1s are there in the league right this second? 10-15? Maybe? And two of those guys are on the same team. That's about it IMO.

I mean you've got on my list...
Kobe
Lebron
Wade
Dirk
Carmelo
CP3
Durant
D-Rose
Dwight Howard

That's the top 9 in some order IMO....
Then you've got a group of...
Deron Williams
Russell Westbrook
Amare

That are sort of on the edge. Those are really the only true number 1 "if you have one of these guys you can compete" people in the league IMO. I might be forgetting one or two people.

BillS
03-02-2011, 12:35 PM
There's just something about when he is on the floor that I can't quite put my finger on. Attitude? The way he tends to start out games? Maybe it is defense, but I don't know.

I've been trying to watch before I really said anything, because the stats don't show it (though defense is harder to do stats on because you don't really have 1-on-1 or team stats as such).

Really?
03-02-2011, 12:40 PM
The word CAN is key... far away yes...but he has the potential...

Infinite MAN_force
03-02-2011, 12:40 PM
If we are throwing "Joe Johnson" into this mix than yes, I think Granger qualifies. As it stands, I don't think Joe Johnson is leading any team to the promise land as their best player. At the very least, he isn't putting any team on his back.

On a team with equally distributed talent such as the Detroit Pistons of the last decade? Sure, if you have near equal talent at nearly every other position, it is possible.

In an ideal situation, Granger is a number 2 guy, but I generally hate questions like this... too many variables.

Infinite MAN_force
03-02-2011, 12:47 PM
I could only seriously consider it if he flipped a switch in his brain and gave 100% effort on defense at all times. He just doesn't seem like he'll ever do that.

I would like to see what happens if another player emerges (Paul George?) to supplant him as our #1 scoring option. I hope that with that pressure off of him he might completely refocus himself on the defensive end. At least that is what I hope, because he has the potential to be elite on the defensive end.

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 12:53 PM
naptown menace:

it seems to me like you are trying to convince yourself that he can be a number one type of player on a contender.

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 12:55 PM
I mean Reggie wasn't even a "#1 Guy" in the NBA as far as I'm concerned.

naptownmenace
03-02-2011, 12:57 PM
naptown menace:

it seems to me like you are trying to convince yourself that he can be a number one type of player on a contender.

I'm not convinced. I'm hopeful for sure but not convinced. I actually didn't really think about it until the past 5 games or so.

I know that stats don't really tell the true tale of a player's worth. They do show trends though. This is what Danny has done the past 10 games:

34.9 mins, .503 FG%, 6.3 rebs, 2.3 ast, 0.5 blk, 1.1 stl, 22.4 ppg

He's also averaged 6.4 free throw attempts during February which is a season high for him. During the last 5 games he's averaged 7.6 attempts and has hit 92% of his free throws. So he's definitely focusing more on driving to the basket which is a great step towards establishing himself as the key man during the stretch/4th quarter.

Speed
03-02-2011, 01:03 PM
I've seen growth under Vogel as far as stepping up in crunch time. I'd love to see him do what Reggie did against a young Kobe in the offseason in L.A. and work on his isolation moves.

Still I don't think you contend with him as your #1 unless its a Detroit scenario. Either Detroit team really, the 88-89 teams (Zeke, Dumars, Rodman, Laimbeer, Salley, the Microwave, Mahorn, Aguire) or the more recent group (can't remember the exact year, but Billips, Rasheed, Ben Wallace, Prince, and Rip). Where its a "team" that has all the right pieces.

Since86
03-02-2011, 01:06 PM
He might be focusing on driving to the basket, but it will never be at an elite level.

If the refs start actually calling him for offensive fouls, it's over for him. He sticks out his off arm and pushes off defender like he's doing the heisman.

It's not a knock on him, to say that he's a Robin, as opposed to a Batman. He's still one hell of a player.

Mackey_Rose
03-02-2011, 01:13 PM
He might be focusing on driving to the basket, but it will never be at an elite level.

If the refs start actually calling him for offensive fouls, it's over for him. He sticks out his off arm and pushes off defender like he's doing the heisman.

It's not a knock on him, to say that he's a Robin, as opposed to a Batman. He's still one hell of a player.

On that note...it amazes me that he doesn't get called for an offensive foul every time we run the high-low lob play from Hibbert to Granger.

I mean it is a good play, especially when he is matched up against a smaller defender, but he literally shoves his defender with two hands every single time it is run. He's only been called for it a few times, but he should get called for it every time.

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 01:14 PM
Good thing it's the NBA.

Bball
03-02-2011, 01:23 PM
Too many years of O'Brien Ball didn't help him. After an initial surge IMHO it really hurt his game. He's going to have to learn to re-commit to defense as well as learn to re-balance his game on both ends of the court.

BPump33
03-02-2011, 01:30 PM
On that note...it amazes me that he doesn't get called for an offensive foul every time we run the high-low lob play from Hibbert to Granger.

I mean it is a good play, especially when he is matched up against a smaller defender, but he literally shoves his defender with two hands every single time it is run. He's only been called for it a few times, but he should get called for it every time.

Yeah, I notice that as well. Also, on damn near every drive he uses his off hand to create a lot of space. That is a nice way of saying he uses his off hand to shove the hell out of his man to get a shot off. He's on our team so I'm ok with it, but I would be screaming for a foul every time if we were playing against him.

Defense is definitely my biggest problem with Danny. I've said this before, but it's not like he can't do it, it just seems like he won't for some reason. That's what is so frustrating.

Edit: I didn't read the thread before I posted this obviously. Since86 beat me to the "Heisman pose."

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 01:44 PM
so now, instead of judging a book by the cover, you are doing it by reading a few successive pages.

i think the book had a nice start, but the last few chapters have been cryptic if not frankly disappointing.

not really an attack on you, i just think you are trying to make a stretch.


I'm not convinced. I'm hopeful for sure but not convinced. I actually didn't really think about it until the past 5 games or so.

I know that stats don't really tell the true tale of a player's worth. They do show trends though. This is what Danny has done the past 10 games:

34.9 mins, .503 FG%, 6.3 rebs, 2.3 ast, 0.5 blk, 1.1 stl, 22.4 ppg

He's also averaged 6.4 free throw attempts during February which is a season high for him. During the last 5 games he's averaged 7.6 attempts and has hit 92% of his free throws. So he's definitely focusing more on driving to the basket which is a great step towards establishing himself as the key man during the stretch/4th quarter.

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 01:48 PM
have no doubt, he is the key guy in the forth qtr/during the stretch, but primarily bc there is no one else at this moment. Also, this is just not a contender. So I agree he is the number 1 on this team, but he could not be on any of the contenders:
boston no
chicago no
orlando no
miami no
la no
dallas no

Since86
03-02-2011, 01:49 PM
Danny isn't even the second best player on most of those teams.

Mackey_Rose
03-02-2011, 01:52 PM
Honestly, how many teams do not have at least one player who is better than Granger? 1? 2? Maybe 3?

To me, that screams "not a #1 guy."

Sookie
03-02-2011, 02:01 PM
I think looking at this team as a Batman/robin setup is a mistake.

Danny can be "one of the best players on the team" so long as there are two others that are just as good. We aren't going to get a superstar, so creating a team with lot of depth and borderline all star players, that compete hard, play great defense, and play well together is how Indiana will get a championship contender.

ilive4sports
03-02-2011, 02:01 PM
Since the topic is a number one like what Paul Pierce is now or what Billups was in Detroit a few years ago, absolutely Danny can be the number one guy like that. And guess what? That is how this team is being built. It's not being built for Danny to have to be Kobe or LeBron. Everyone knows he isn't that good. But Danny is a damn good player. Like it or not he has been very clutch for us, especially in recent games.

Everyone likes to say stuff like he isn't clutch, can't drive, or can't drive at an elite level, doesn't play defense. But these things are all overstated. The dude just went and had 16 FG attempts last night. Who cares if his drive is a little sloppy if he is getting into the lane and drawing fouls. Thats even better than just making the lay up. Clutch shots are more than just at the end of games. They are scoring when your team needs you too, and more times than not Danny scores.

And his defense, his lack of it is his biggest problem right now. But its not all on the individual. The defensive system we are running is still broken. It relies way too much on help defense. Every one of our players are too eager to help. This is why we see so many open three point attempts against us. Grant Hill is a savvy veteran and knew exactly how to expose this. Our guys need to stick with their man a lot better. Its hard because it all collapses when Collison gets beat, which is often. Have a better defender at point, Danny's defense will be much, much better.

So can Danny be the number one player like Paul Pierce is or Billups was a few years back? Absolutely.

ilive4sports
03-02-2011, 02:06 PM
I think looking at this team as a Batman/robin setup is a mistake.

Danny can be "one of the best players on the team" so long as there are two others that are just as good. We aren't going to get a superstar, so creating a team with lot of depth and borderline all star players, that compete hard, play great defense, and play well together is how Indiana will get a championship contender.

Exactly! This team isn't being built like Chicago, LA, or Dallas. This team is being built like the 04-05 Pistons. Its going to have more of that attitude. Its similar to what Boston is doing now with all their aging stars.

In order to see how good Danny truly is, we need to see the talent around him mature. Since Vogel took over Danny has been playing better. Why wouldn't he as the talent around him does too? He's proven to be more efficient under Vogel. He can be an extremely efficient player. 27 points on 11 shots is absolutely ridiculous. I don't care about is he a Batman or Robin when the team is built as a team.

idioteque
03-02-2011, 02:08 PM
Danny is a good player and a good person, but he doesn't have the talent or the competitive edge to be a #1 player. People compare Danny to Pippen, he's actually much more similar to Shareef Abdur-Rahim except he's not as good of a rebounder and is a much better three point shooter. He could probably share #1 duties with someone on a fringe playoff team, but is more like a #3 guy playing a Lamar Odom type role on a championship team.

The Pacers best chance at success is surrounding Danny with other very talented, but not supremely talented players, like they are doing, and hope that either all of these super teams have an off year or they neglect their benches and get worn down by playoff time, and slip in and win the whole thing once like the Pistons did.

dgranger17
03-02-2011, 02:15 PM
He can be the #1 player on a contender if/when he tries. He's an all-star if/when he tries. We usually win if/when he tries.

I hope he develops a post-up game sometime soon too. That would make him even better. He's still young

naptownmenace
03-02-2011, 02:19 PM
have no doubt, he is the key guy in the forth qtr/during the stretch, but primarily bc there is no one else at this moment. Also, this is just not a contender. So I agree he is the number 1 on this team, but he could not be on any of the contenders:
boston no
chicago no
orlando no
miami no
la no
dallas no

I agree with you but I don't really think you are understanding my question.

My question is can he become one of those guys. I'm not asking is he on that level now but can he make the changes to become an elite player?

graphic-er
03-02-2011, 02:26 PM
He might be focusing on driving to the basket, but it will never be at an elite level.

If the refs start actually calling him for offensive fouls, it's over for him. He sticks out his off arm and pushes off defender like he's doing the heisman.

It's not a knock on him, to say that he's a Robin, as opposed to a Batman. He's still one hell of a player.

I think you just describe every star wing player in the NBA. Well except Kobe, I don't see seem push off that much. But all those guys swipe away with their hands or push off to get open. Danny just isn't as good at selling it.

One thing for sure, his dribble drive might not be elite, but the more you do something the better you get at it. So he has been focusing on this for about 2 months now? Give it another season and his dribble drive is gonna be pretty damn good.

Justin Tyme
03-02-2011, 02:28 PM
Too many years of O'Brien Ball didn't help him. After an initial surge IMHO it really hurt his game. He's going to have to learn to re-commit to defense as well as learn to re-balance his game on both ends of the court.


W/o a doubt Jimmy hindered Granger's game to the point he regressed in his game. Granger just needs to re-apply himself to improving his game, especially his "D". I don't ever foresee Granger being a #1 Guy in the NBA, "BUT" I can see him with renewed effort being a cut below.

Things that I would like Granger to improve upon is his "D", his ability to make his team mates better, and improving his handle. This would help improve his value to the team and make the team much better. These are things Granger is capable of doing, and hopefully the rest of the season and over the offseason he works on them. It will make him such a better player, going from a good player to a very good player +.

vnzla81
03-02-2011, 02:33 PM
Danny is 28 years old, I'm sorry but I don't think he is going to improve more, he is who he is, the best player in a decent team.

He is probably the 3th best player in a Championship team.

PaceBalls
03-02-2011, 02:38 PM
Knowing how to finish games is key. Like not settling for jumpshots and not helping off shooters too much. Taking it to the hole, drawing fouls, shooting free throws and playing harder on defense late in games is the way to win against good teams and in the playoffs. Once he gets that and plays with that intention. Yes, he can be that #1 guy on a contender.

BRushWithDeath
03-02-2011, 02:44 PM
But these things are all overstated. The dude just went and had 16 FG attempts last night. Who cares if his drive is a little sloppy if he is getting into the lane and drawing fouls.

6 of which were taken in the final seconds when GSW was intentionally fouling.

At least 2 that I remember were from a jumpshot.

And his lack of defense is certainly not overstated. Quite the opposite.

naptownmenace
03-02-2011, 02:58 PM
Danny is 5th in the league in PER by position (SF). Just for giggles in order of least to greatest:

Danny Granger
Indiana
Position: Forward
2010-11 Statistics
PPG 21.1
RPG 5.7
APG 2.7
SPG 1.1
BPG 0.8
FG% 0.436
FT% 0.843
3P% 0.392
MPG 36.0


Paul Pierce
Boston
Position: Forward
2010-11 Statistics
PPG 19.0
RPG 5.0
APG 3.2
SPG 1.0
BPG 0.6
FG% 0.496
FT% 0.852
3P% 0.388
MPG 34.8


Carmelo Anthony
New York
Position: Forward
2010-11 Statistics
PPG 25.3
RPG 7.6
APG 2.7
SPG 0.8
BPG 0.6
FG% 0.447
FT% 0.827
3P% 0.336
MPG 35.7


Kevin Durant
Oklahoma City
Position: Forward
2010-11 Statistics
PPG 28.5
RPG 7.2
APG 2.8
SPG 1.1
BPG 1.0
FG% 0.464
FT% 0.872
3P% 0.335
MPG 39.6

LeBron James
Miami
Position: Forward
2010-11 Statistics
PPG 26.2
RPG 7.5
APG 7.2
SPG 1.6
BPG 0.6
FG% 0.488
FT% 0.758
3P% 0.338
MPG 38.3

Clearly Danny is not considered as good as the small forwards ranked ahead of him but his production isn't too far off. However, other than Lebron while in Cleveland, these players have had far more talent surrounding them. I think it would be really interesting to see how good Danny would be considered if he had a Russel Westbrook, Chauncey Billups, Rondo, or Ray Allen type player to play beside him.

yoadknux
03-02-2011, 02:59 PM
It's a bit tricky if you ask me. As he is right now, he's not a #1 Guy.
But we need to consider a few things:

1) The team is underachieving. Danny didn't see the playoffs since his rookie season. When the team is underachieving, you lose motivation. I don't justify it, the really great players can get over this barrier, but I can understand it. Losing can be hard.
2) The supporting cast. Tell me, how can Danny, alone, lead us both on offense and defense? Our defense sucks generally, as a team. players miss assignments, we can't even stop a simple Pick n roll. And our offense, Danny leads it really well, I'm willing to bet all my money that he lead us in points for at least 50% of the games this season.
Kobe always had good supporting cast. Melo had good supporting cast. Durant became really good when RW broke out. Rose became really good when Noah stepped up and Boozer joined him.

We should just wait and see. He could be a #1 Guy, who knows. Things change.

BRushWithDeath
03-02-2011, 03:01 PM
We should just wait and see. He could be a #1 Guy, who knows. Things change.

He's almost 28. If we don't know by now, we're probably never going to.

Justin Tyme
03-02-2011, 03:03 PM
Grant Hill is a savvy veteran and knew exactly how to expose this.


The next night Hill had a whopping 4 points in an OT game. Where was all this veteran savvy against rookie Damion Jones and Travis Outlaw of the Nets. The Nets aren't exactly known for their "D".

Deadshot
03-02-2011, 03:10 PM
Notice the title of this thread is not a question but a statement.

IMHO, Danny has the ability to be a "number 1 guy" not in the mold of a Lebron, Wade, Kobe, or Rose but in the mold of a Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Joe Johnson type of key player.


Let's look at the key ingredients for being a "number 1 guy".

1. The player is the best player on the team.


I don't want to nitpick, but Paul Pierce and Ray Allen don't logically fit your argument because they both play on the same team. And personally, I think Rondo could be the best player on that team. When Dunleavy went on a tear and started putting up solid numbers several years ago, I was excited to see what him and Danny would do together (DG was hurt a large portion of the time). I think Danny could be a #1 if he had this type of complimentary player but we don't even have that right now. As a sidenote, I will also say that I really don't have any confidence in Granger coming through in key moments of games (although he has shown in the past that he can, the clutch shot against the Suns several years ago, the recent pass to Rush for the dunk, etc).

yoadknux
03-02-2011, 03:13 PM
He's almost 28. If we don't know by now, we're probably never going to.
It's true that most superstars break out at this point. But some don't. For example, Steve Nash. He was like 30ish when he posted career stats and won MVP.
All I'm saying is there's still a chance

Eleazar
03-02-2011, 03:14 PM
Can Granger be a #1 guy?

Absolutely yes, we have seen him do it before. When he plays like he should he is every bit as good as Carmelo Anthony.

Does Granger want to be the #1 guy?

I don't think so. We all know how good Granger can be on defense, or how good he can be when he is playing smart, but that happens so few and far between I question his motivation. To me it seems like he has just turned into a guy who just wants to put in enough effort to get by while collecting his check.




1) The team is underachieving. Danny didn't see the playoffs since his rookie season. When the team is underachieving, you lose motivation. I don't justify it, the really great players can get over this barrier, but I can understand it. Losing can be hard.


The only player on this team that is underachieving is Danny Granger. The rest may not be reaching their potential yet, but they are not underachieving.

Taterhead
03-02-2011, 03:31 PM
I don't think so. And there is nothing wrong with that. Danny just struggles to create against tough defense. He doesn't handle the ball well enough under pressure to be a guy you can throw the ball to and know you're going to get a good shot every time. He is a nice piece to have though, and his outside shooting is a weapon that garners respect from the other team night in and night out. So he is a darn good #2 for anybody. Especially for any team with a top level big man or elite slasher.

But when I think of a #1 guy I think of Dwayne Wade, Blake Griffen or Derrick Rose. And Danny is a notch below those kind of guys.

DocHolliday
03-02-2011, 03:35 PM
I think the big qualifier that isn't mentioned for being a #1 guy is, "If that player were to miss half the season or more (due to injury, for instance) would the team be severely handicapped by his absence?" I don't think the Pacers would see much of a drop-off.

Another trait of a #1 is, "When his team needs a win can he carry the team, possibly even will the team, to a win?" I don't think that requirement is met either in this case.

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 03:56 PM
Fair enough - I might not be.

But I think personally at this age, no. A duck is a duck is a duck.

He's not a ducklet any more.

There is only one guy who comes to mind as a possible late blossomer to the extent that you are maybe thinking of: Chauncey Billups.

And lets be honest here, Chauncey I don't even think is really a #1 guy. He's very good, he's a good leader, but I don't think he could carry a team on his shoulders, even in his prime.



I agree with you but I don't really think you are understanding my question.

My question is can he become one of those guys. I'm not asking is he on that level now but can he make the changes to become an elite player?

Trophy
03-02-2011, 04:03 PM
Danny is a great guy and sets a good example for the younger guys.

He told Lance in the offseason that he needs to get away from all that off the court nonsense now that he's a pro and it seems like Lance was embarrassed with it and he'll hopefully behave himself because he's going to be a hell of a player.

As far as a player, Danny just doesn't give it his all every game.

He's a really good defender when it's needed most, but slacks off during games.

Some of his shot selections can be a bit of a head scratcher, but he's still pretty dangerous on the offensive end and has really turned it around and stepped up when the game is on the line.

I'm also happy he's more aggressive and is getting to the FT more often. That's where he can take advantage.

I feel like Paul is gonna be "the guy" for the Pacers moving forward even with Danny here.

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 04:07 PM
Rush is not a consistent shooter.. oops sorry, wrong thread.:laugh:

BringJackBack
03-02-2011, 04:07 PM
Danny is a good leader (In my opinion; I'm in the minority), he's a good 3rd guy, and when he's taking good shots and playing defense he is great for us.. We just have to get him to consistently play hard; Perhaps that will come around as we become a better team.

It's not downgrading Danny if we say that he's not a number uno option on a good team.. Just not that guy. If we get two guys that are of his talent level and Paul George turns into a stud than we'll be fine.

Unclebuck
03-02-2011, 04:11 PM
Honestly, how many teams do not have at least one player who is better than Granger? 1? 2? Maybe 3?

To me, that screams "not a #1 guy."


Excellent point. At the forum party last weekend I asked it another way. On any contending team what would Danny be. Most cases the number 3 scorer, I think 1 case the number 4 scorer and a few cases the number 2 scorer. But in no case did he become the number 1 scorer.

Thunder - #3
Lakers - #3
Mavs - #2 or #3
Spurs - I argued he'd be number #4
Celtics - #3 or #4
Magic - #2
Heat - #3
Bulls - #2 probably
if you want to through the Hawks in he might be #2, and with the Knicks he'd be #3.

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 04:14 PM
Excellent point. At the forum party last weekend I asked it another way. On any contending team what would Danny be. Most cases the number 3 scorer, I think 1 case the number 4 scorer and a few cases the number 2 scorer. But in no case did he become the number 1 scorer.

Thunder - #3
Lakers - #3
Mavs - #2 or #3
Spurs - I argued he'd be number #4
Celtics - #3 or #4
Magic - #2
Heat - #4
Bulls - #3 probably
if you want to through the Hawks in he might be #2, and with the Knicks he'd be #3.FIXED

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 04:17 PM
Danny is a good leader (In my opinion; I'm in the minority),

I know its your opinion so don't take me too seriously;

I think Danny is the de facto leader. Who else really could garner any real locker room respect? Maybe maybe TJ. But probably not from the bench...

So then is he a GOOD leader? I don't think so - if he were, I think we would be better than our record states.

I don't think him having a talk with Lance with regards to his maturity annoints him a leader.

Thats my opinion.

BringJackBack
03-02-2011, 04:23 PM
I know its your opinion so don't take me too seriously;

I think Danny is the de facto leader. Who else really could garner any real locker room respect? Maybe maybe TJ. But probably not from the bench...

So then is he a GOOD leader? I don't think so - if he were, I think we would be better than our record states.

I don't think him having a talk with Lance with regards to his maturity annoints him a leader.

Thats my opinion.

My opinion is formed around where he talked that he wanted to be more like Chauncey/Odom when he was surrounded by them during the summer. Since then he has:

-Stayed after practice with Paul George
-Got onto Lance and Brandon about being careless
-He's MUCH more active during the games and he talks to the guys and gives them an earful when they aren't playing hard (Which is a contradiction because half the time he doesn't give 100%, I know :laugh:)
-He's a lot more softly spoken towards the media and I think that plays a part into him being a better teammate.

Like for example; Last night they were struggling in the fourth and we got to the line so Danny pulled the other four together to regroup.. And we ended up closing the game out.

BringJackBack
03-02-2011, 04:25 PM
FIXED

He'd be number three for Miami in my opinion, and Boozer is a guy who plays off of Rose so I can see where you're coming from, but it would be a lot easier for Danny to score if he was on a team good enough that he doesn't have to get doubled in the fourth and all that.

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 04:27 PM
Honestly, how many teams do not have at least one player who is better than Granger? 1? 2? Maybe 3?

To me, that screams "not a #1 guy."

76ers (AI = Granger?), Toronto (Bargnani?), Cavs, Pistons, Kings, GS (Ellis = Granger?), Bucks {all 3 east central teams, worse record than the pacers fyi), Grizz (Zbo?, rather have granger than zbo at 13M/3yrs), Rockets (martin), Bobcats, Wizards (Wall will be better longterm), Nuggets (darananli/NeNe?), Trailbrazers (wallace?), Jazz (Jefferson).

At least 5 teams i would say at a minimum. I dont think Granger is option 1A, but option 1B is a good role. What is interesting is all the teams with a better player than Granger, have a clear cut #2 option. Who is the #2 option on the Pacers, a third year center, new second year pg in his first season with this offense, dunleavy???

Howard has nelson, jrich, arenas.
Bron, Dwade
Joe Johnson, Horford.
Westbrook, Durant
Love has no one as a strong second option (Beasly?).
DRose, Boozer, Noah
Dirk, Kidd,
Paul, West
Manu, TP, Duncan
Curry, Ellis, Lee
Kobe, Gasol
Nash.....Hill?Carter
Blake, Gordon
Melo, Stat
KG, PP, Allen
Williams.. Lopez


Bottom line, Granger needs another veteran allstar in the starting lineup. Collison and Roy should be option 3a & 3b.

Even Reggie Miller had Smits, Granger needs more than just young players with potential surrounding him. A vet like West would be perfect here.

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 04:27 PM
He'd be number three for Miami in my opinion, and Boozer is a guy who plays off of Rose so I can see where you're coming from, but it would be a lot easier for Danny to score if he was on a team good enough that he doesn't have to get doubled in the fourth and all that.

where would Danny play in Miami Dwade and LBJ get 40 mins a night. Bosh get 30+ at the PF. He would barley play just saying. Boozer is a force in the post he is a better player than Danny in my view. I also think Deng is just as good as him because Deng plays defense and is a legit scorer also.

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 04:30 PM
76ers (AI = Granger?), Toronto (Bargnani?), Cavs, Pistons, Kings, GS (Ellis = Granger?), Bucks {all 2 east central teams, worse record than the pacers fyi), Grizz (Zbo?, rather have granger than zbo at 13M/3yrs), Rockets (martin), Bobcats, Wizards (Wall will be better longterm), Nuggets (darananli/NeNe?), Trailbrazers (wallace?), Jazz (Jefferson).

At least 5 teams i would say at a minimum. I dont think Granger is option 1A, but option 1B is a good role. What is interesting is all the teams with a better player than Granger, have a clear cut #2 option. Who is the #2 option on the Pacers, a third year center, new second year pg in his first season with this offense, dunleavy???

Howard has nelson, jrich, arenas.
Bron, Dwade
Joe Johnson, Horford.
Westbrook, Durant
Love has no one as a strong second option (Beasly?).
DRose, Boozer, Noah
Dirk, Kidd,
Paul, West
Manu, TP, Duncan
Curry, Ellis, Lee
Kobe, Gasol
Nash.....Hill?Carter
Blake, Gordon
Melo, Stat
KG, PP, Allen
Williams.. Lopez


Bottom line, Granger needs another veteran allstar in the starting lineup. Collison and Roy should be option 3a & 3b.

Even Reggie Miller had Smits, Granger needs more than just young players with potential surrounding him. A vet like West would be perfect here.

I would take Ellis and Z bo as my number 1 scoreing option over DG

Since86
03-02-2011, 04:33 PM
where would Danny play in Miami Dwade and LBJ get 40 mins a night. Bosh get 30+ at the PF. He would barley play just saying. Boozer is a force in the post he is a better player than Danny in my view. I also think Deng is just as good as him because Deng plays defense and is a legit scorer also.

You're really underrating Danny as a scorer.

There are a lot of guys in the league that can average right under 20pts a game, but that number gets cut down dramatically when you start talking about 25pts a game.

Danny has done that, and can do that. Deng has not, and I bet he never will.

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 04:33 PM
Celtics - #3 or #4

possibly #1 or #2. Rondo isnt really an offensive weapon in putting the ball in the hoop.

With the C's Danny could easily replace Paul Pierce's production I believe. Some nights Danny could be the #1 option on that team because its very balanced.

I'd argue the #2 option on the Lakers. Gasol is as soft as Bosh at times. I dont think Danny is a true #1, but definitely a solid second scoring option.

If we could add a Reggie Miller to this team to help Granger out, we would be close to winning 50 games a season.

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 04:33 PM
I agree, those are decent leader like activities. But cheerleaders lead cheering. We've got them. They're called the Pacemates.

I think a bigger part for Danny comes on the floor during the game - not chucking bad shots, passing the ball, getting assists, and playing defense. Those things have NOT translated from dream team this summer, which is why I was so down on him this preseason.

For what its worth, I like Danny, I don't dislike him. I just don't think he's the main guy for a competitive or contending team. Unfortunately, I think we missed the trade window, which would have been late last year or early this year.


My opinion is formed around where he talked that he wanted to be more like Chauncey/Odom when he was surrounded by them during the summer. Since then he has:

-Stayed after practice with Paul George
-Got onto Lance and Brandon about being careless
-He's MUCH more active during the games and he talks to the guys and gives them an earful when they aren't playing hard (Which is a contradiction because half the time he doesn't give 100%, I know :laugh:)
-He's a lot more softly spoken towards the media and I think that plays a part into him being a better teammate.

Like for example; Last night they were struggling in the fourth and we got to the line so Danny pulled the other four together to regroup.. And we ended up closing the game out.

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 04:37 PM
possibly #1 or #2. Rondo isnt really an offensive weapon in putting the ball in the hoop.

With the C's Danny could easily replace Paul Pierce's production I believe. Some nights Danny could be the #1 option on that team because its very balanced.

I'd argue the #2 option on the Lakers. Gasol is as soft as Bosh at times. I dont think Danny is a true #1, but definitely a solid second scoring option.



don't kid yourself

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 04:37 PM
I would take Ellis and Z bo as my number 1 scoreing option over DG

i think its a coin flip.. Ellis doesnt play much defense either according to most reports.

Ellis also has Curry, Lee as their big 3. Who are the pacers big 3.. a 2nd and 3rd year player.? all im sayin is i think it would help Granger to have another vet presence or all star caliber player beside him.

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 04:39 PM
don't kid yourself

great response! UB himself said Granger could be #3 option.. who is UB kidding himself that Granger is better than? I would take Granger over Paul Pierce. In fact, Pierce might be the perfect comparison to Granger, before the big 3 formed in Boston what were Pierces numbers.. hell this is even better because JOB coached Boston.

maybe you misunderstood, Granger would not be the #1 option every night on the celtics, but there would be nights where Granger was option 1, then the next night option 4 or 5.

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 04:46 PM
You're really underrating Danny as a scorer.

There are a lot of guys in the league that can average right under 20pts a game, but that number gets cut down dramatically when you start talking about 25pts a game.

Danny has done that, and can do that. Deng has not, and I bet he never will.

Bosh aved 25 and 12 last year as the number 1 option. I dont think I am

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 04:48 PM
no i didn't misunderstand, you said possibly #1 or #2. you didn't mention "on any given sunday". in that case, danny probably could be #1 option for the heat on any occasional night.


great response! UB himself said Granger could be #3 option.. who is UB kidding himself that Granger is better than?

maybe you misunderstood, Granger would not be the #1 option every night on the celtics, but there would be nights where Granger was option 1, then the next night option 4 or 5.

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 04:58 PM
no i didn't misunderstand, you said possibly #1 or #2. you didn't mention "on any given sunday". in that case, danny probably could be #1 option for the heat on any given night.

let me clarify. UB stated on Boston DG would be a #3 or #4. If Granger were #3 he is either taking Pierce or Allens role. Both players were #1's at a point in time. On Boston though they play team ball, its not about who scores its about winning.

Any given Sunday on a team like Boston, you insert Granger for Pierce and he would play just as well.

Miami is about the big 3 and not the team, so i dont think Granger would ever be a#1.

Hell, how many on here would consider Reggie a true #1 option yet he led this team to 5 ECF's in 8 years.

We do not have to have a #1, just like Boston, we need to build a "team" that can compete with the NY's & Miami's big 3 philosophy.

Hypothetically add West/ and Jamal Crawford to this roster, then ask, can Granger be a #1 option for ateam, and i would say yes, but not every night.

DC
Crawford
Granger
West
Hibbert

I dont think Granger needs to be a #1, he just needs talent around him like every other star in the league. even Kobe pre-Gasol couldnt carry his team by himself. Granger has no one around him that is close to allstar play at this time, he is also the only player in the starting lineup over 25.

Eleazar
03-02-2011, 04:59 PM
Excellent point. At the forum party last weekend I asked it another way. On any contending team what would Danny be. Most cases the number 3 scorer, I think 1 case the number 4 scorer and a few cases the number 2 scorer. But in no case did he become the number 1 scorer.

Thunder - #3
Lakers - #3
Mavs - #2 or #3
Spurs - I argued he'd be number #4
Celtics - #3 or #4
Magic - #2
Heat - #3
Bulls - #2 probably
if you want to through the Hawks in he might be #2, and with the Knicks he'd be #3.

With the exception of the Thunder, Celtics, and Heat I believe Danny would be at least the second scoring options, and possible the first on the Bulls and Magic, especially when there are other consistent options around him. Also being the number 1 scoring option doesn't always mean you are the best player, or the offense runs through you.




As far as Danny being a leader, I think he is a good locker room leader, but not a good floor leader. He leads through words not actions, and in order to be a great leader he needs to do both.

croz24
03-02-2011, 04:59 PM
i find it very discomforting that over 20% of the people who have voted either think he can be the #1 on a contender or already is one.

Since86
03-02-2011, 04:59 PM
Bosh aved 25 and 12 last year as the number 1 option. I dont think I am

What does that have to do with Loul Deng and the comparison with him and Danny?

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 05:03 PM
What does that have to do with Loul Deng and the comparison with him and Danny?

I just think Loul is the perfect fit where he is he isnt a number one just like Granger isnt. But he plays his role perfectly score and make open shots and play great defense.

Eleazar
03-02-2011, 05:08 PM
i find it very discomforting that over 20% of the people who have voted either think he can be the #1 on a contender or already is one.

Why is it discomforting that people think he can be? He has proven that he can be when he tries, the problem is he just doesn't try.

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 05:09 PM
Paul Pierce and Granger are prettymuch the same player. and both of them have played under Obrien. if Paul Pierce is considerded a number 1 option, than so is Danny.

Below are each players stats. Very similar.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/2760/danny-granger
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/662/paul-pierce

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 05:10 PM
Why is it discomforting that people think he can be? He has proven that he can be when he tries, the problem is he just doesn't try.

That isnt true. He doesnt have the dribbling and court vision to be a number one option at the wing postion. Not trying on defense is just the icing on the cake.

Justin Tyme
03-02-2011, 05:10 PM
gives them an earful when they aren't playing hard (Which is a contradiction because half the time he doesn't give 100%, I know :laugh:)


Who gives Granger an earful when he makes a mistake? As you said, he plays 100% half the time. I'd be real interested how Granger would re-act if Foster, Dun, or Posey got in Granger's face about his poor playing. How he'd re-act would tell me something about Granger accepting corrective critism.

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 05:10 PM
Honestly, how many teams do not have at least one player who is better than Granger? 1? 2? Maybe 3?

To me, that screams "not a #1 guy."

Milwaukee
Detroit
Cleveland
Raptors
Bobcats
Kings
Nuggets

IMO Danny would be the "best" player on all of those teams. So yeah, it's not that long of a list.

Since86
03-02-2011, 05:11 PM
I just think Loul is the perfect fit where he is he isnt a number one just like Granger isnt. But he plays his role perfectly score and make open shots and play great defense.

I know what you said the first time, I'm asking what Chris Bosh has to do with the discussion, because when I point out the differences between Danny and Loul you started talking about Bosh.


I agree Deng is a good fit for the roll he currently has, which isn't even a #2, but a #3 behind Rose and Boozer.

I disagree that he and Danny are on the same level. Danny is the second tier when you consider that only a handful of players average 25+pts per game for a season, which Danny has done.

Deng has never averaged over 20.

I'm not saying Danny is the ideal fit, I think he'd be better suited to be a second option on a contender, but he's still better than Deng.

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 05:12 PM
Paul Pierce and Granger are prettymuch the same player. and both of them have played under Obrien. if Paul Pierce is considerded a number 1 option, than so is Danny.

Below are each players stats. Very similar.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/2760/danny-granger
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/662/paul-pierce

Differnce is Paul Pierce is clutch and is a playmaker. When he drivess he doesnt put his head down like Danny he is looking to creat for others as well as himself.

Pacergeek
03-02-2011, 05:12 PM
i don't like how he sometimes smiles and jokes around during games. you never see true number 1 guys like kobe or duncan smiling.

naptownmenace
03-02-2011, 05:15 PM
The one thing this thread has helped me to appreciate is how poorly everyone on the Pacers roster rates when compared to other teams with all-star players. I just spent some time looking at the PER rankings of our Pacers players and it ain't very pretty.

Danny rank is 43 overall, which isn't that great but is better than players like Tony Parker, Manu Ginobilli, Gerald Wallace, and Joe Johnson. He's ranked 5th in SFs.

No other Pacers player is ranked in the top 75 players in the NBA. Roy Hibbert is 76 overall and 17th in Centers. No other Pacers player is ranked in the top 100. I was really shocked by this - especially with Roy's low ranking among Centers.

I think we really might be underrating Danny as a basketball player considering the low level of play his inconsistent teammates have produced this season.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp?league=00&season=22010&conf=OVERALL&position=0&splitType=9&qualified=N&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=6&splitDD=All%20Teams

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 05:15 PM
Differnce is Paul Pierce is clutch and is a playmaker. When he drivess he doesnt put his head down like Danny he is looking to creat for others as well as himself.

You wouldn't have said either of these things about Pierce 8 years ago.

Cactus Jax
03-02-2011, 05:16 PM
There are clearly some people that just outright hate the face that Danny is the leader of this team at all. I can think of at least 5 posters in the topic alone who will never be convinced otherwise that he has some sort of shot of doing it.

If Danny were so bad the Pacers would have had a bottom 5 record type of year and would have gotten a "better" #1 option, but no he's been good enough that it hasn't happened. You just can't get home run options (besides Danny at 17) from picks 13 and above outside of maybe a 2nd round steal. Brandon Rush has been a huge bust at 13, Tyler is starting to show signs but is also not been near the hype, Hibbert is pretty good for a 17th pick as well but not at Granger's level yet by any means.

Paul George MIGHT be a good 2nd option but you can't guarantee anything yet with him, don't know about the offseason mindset, what he'll work on etc, those type of things are what make a player. Lance looks like he belongs out there but he's got so many questions, he could go from out of the league in 3 years to a 2nd-3rd best player option.

What I'm saying is I'm glad the Pacers are trying to build around a player like Granger and work the pieces rather than trade him for some prospects that may never work out.

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 05:18 PM
i don't like how he sometimes smiles and jokes around during games. you never see true number 1 guys like kobe or duncan smiling.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kOygTd1NWCM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/n-uJswwgIRk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

DemonHunter1105
03-02-2011, 05:18 PM
i don't like how he sometimes smiles and jokes around during games. you never see true number 1 guys like kobe or duncan smiling.

This has to be the most ridiculous requirement for being a #1 guy, plus the fact that I have seen Kobe smile many times.

Let's just all hope you were joking.

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 05:21 PM
Differnce is Paul Pierce is clutch and is a playmaker. When he drivess he doesnt put his head down like Danny he is looking to creat for others as well as himself.

who is Danny going to create for?? DC? McRob? Rush over in corner puffing away??

I am not going to declare Granger a #1. But there is alot of grey area in this discussion with the definition of a #1, and i dont think its a necessity we have to have one to compete.

Indiana is not going to attact the Melo, DWills, DHoward's. We need to form a team like the Celts that is deep and has 3-4 players who can every night be a number 1 scoring option.

right now Granger is the only guy we have that fits that criteria. this is almost laughable, but with Dunleavy going down, DC/Roy now step up as clear #2 options on this team and thats simply not good enough.

and Pierce at least had Walker during the obrien era, i dont think its fair to say Granger sucks when he doesnt really have consistent relable scoring around him.

4 guys under 25 starting with him would be tough for even lebron james. get granger some help like pierce recieved and regardless of danny is a number 1 or whatever, he is still a very good player.

Since86
03-02-2011, 05:21 PM
The one thing this thread ha helped me to appreciate is how poorly everyone on the Pacers roster rates when compared to other teams with all-star players. I just spent some time looking at the PER rankings of our Pacers players and it ain't very pretty.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?position=sf&qualified=false&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics%3fposition%3dsf%26qualif ied%3dfalse

Here's a list of PER rankings just for ALL SFs. Devin Ebanks is #6, one spot ahead of Danny. You really think that shows that Ebanks is a better player?


Steve Novak is #8.

It's just not a good evaluation tool.

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 05:22 PM
Also, I think the whole "You can win a championship like the Pistons did" argument is old and dead. No, you can't. That championship was in 2004. The NBA is a lot different now.

If we don't get at least on player better than Danny, we won't ever be a championship team. I don't mean that as an indictment on Danny. I really like him as a player and the way he's conducted himself during this horrible stretch of losing seasons deserves a pat on the back when you look at the way guys like Carmelo and Deron Williams have handled themselves on teams that actually win, that being said we need at least one guy that is more talented than Danny.

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 05:22 PM
i don't like how he sometimes smiles and jokes around during games. you never see true number 1 guys like kobe or duncan smiling.

DHoward is always goofing off, although recently he has become more earnest.

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 05:23 PM
I think we really might be underrating Danny as a basketball player considering the low level of play his inconsistent teammates have produced this season.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp?league=00&season=22010&conf=OVERALL&position=0&splitType=9&qualified=N&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=6&splitDD=All%20Teams

You had me all the way up till this paragraph. I agreed with everything. At this point, you are again making excuses for him. And please understand I'm not trying to flame you. We just see this from two different pairs of glasses. I refuse to blame the team or Danny - its just simply that if he were the leader you wrote about in the first post, he should be elevating his teammates. He's simply not who you want him to be and I don't think he can become that guy.

naptownmenace
03-02-2011, 05:25 PM
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?position=sf&qualified=false&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics%3fposition%3dsf%26qualif ied%3dfalse

Here's a list of PER rankings just for ALL SFs. Devin Ebanks is #6, one spot ahead of Danny. You really think that shows that Ebanks is a better player?


Steve Novak is #8.

It's just not a good evaluation tool.

You need to click the "Qualified" link. They aren't on the Qualified list.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?position=sf&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics%3fposition%3dsf

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 05:26 PM
who is Danny going to create for?? DC? McRob? Rush over in corner puffing away??

I am not going to declare Granger a #1. But there is alot of grey area in this discussion with the definition of a #1, and i dont think its a necessity we have to have one to compete.

Indiana is not going to attact the Melo, DWills, DHoward's. We need to form a team like the Celts that is deep and has 3-4 players who can every night be a number 1 scoring option.

right now Granger is the only guy we have that fits that criteria. this is almost laughable, but with Dunleavy going down, DC/Roy now step up as clear #2 options on this team and thats simply not good enough.

and Pierce at least had Walker during the obrien era, i dont think its fair to say Granger sucks when he doesnt really have consistent relable scoring around him.

4 guys under 25 starting with him would be tough for even lebron james. get granger some help like pierce recieved and regardless of danny is a number 1 or whatever, he is still a very good player.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eFf6eDPsGHA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/x99mER-dzFw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 05:27 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eFf6eDPsGHA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/x99mER-dzFw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I mean come on is a youtube video really the best way to make a point?

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 05:29 PM
I mean come on is a youtube video really the best way to make a point?

I searched Danny Clutch shot and here is what came up http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=danny+granger+clutch+shots&aq=0 LOL Reggie is the number 2 option Iverson is on there also.

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 05:31 PM
Also, I think the whole "You can win a championship like the Pistons did" argument is old and dead. No, you can't. That championship was in 2004. The NBA is a lot different now.

If we don't get at least on player better than Danny, we won't ever be a championship team. I don't mean that as an indictment on Danny. I really like him as a player and the way he's conducted himself during this horrible stretch of losing seasons deserves a pat on the back when you look at the way guys like Carmelo and Deron Williams have handled themselves on teams that actually win, that being said we need at least one guy that is more talented than Danny.

i agree mostly with one tweek, we need a player as good as Danny at a minimum.

More and more im sold on the idea of West if we can get him for 10M at 4 seasons tops. I dont know if that is probable or not. Having a solid veteran all star in the starting lineup would do wonders for this team, West could calm down Hibbert and give DC someone he is very familiar with. Also taking scoring pressure off of Granger.

We would still need a solid player as Danny at SG to be on the level with Miami, SA, LA, Boston, Chicago..

but adding more leadership with West would put in the Hawks category of teams.

if we can add a small trade like Mayo over the offseason and West, then in 2012 add Gordon, theres your big 3 with plenty of solid role players around them like the Boston "benchmark" for success.

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 05:32 PM
I mean come on is a youtube video really the best way to make a point?

its probably a fair sampling if he's only interchanging the names in the searches

Pacergeek
03-02-2011, 05:33 PM
DHoward is always goofing off, although recently he has become more earnest.

Dwight is the only guy that is always smiling. Sure Kobe and Duncan may smile when they complain to the refs, but when the game is on the line, there is no stupid grin on their faces.

I think that during the first Pistons game this year, Danny banked a 3 in the fourth quarter with less than 5 minutes, and he was laughing about it with a Detroit player. What is so damn funny about trying to win an NBA game?

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 05:33 PM
the only thing is Danny has a smaller sample size

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 05:33 PM
I searched Danny Clutch shot and here is what came up http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=danny+granger+clutch+shots&aq=0 LOL Reggie is the number 2 option Iverson is on there also.


So? I'm just saying I hate the "post a youtube" video thing. Unless you're debating something like a specific play whether a ball went out of bounds or not, it really doesn't prove anything.

And like I said, no one would have been going on and on about how clutch Paul Pierce was 8 years ago, or even 5 years ago when he would be a pretty similar age as Danny.

With Danny I really do believe a spade is just a spade. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. However, comparing him to Paul Pierce right now is stupid because 5 years ago Paul Pierce was just a spade.

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 05:35 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eFf6eDPsGHA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/x99mER-dzFw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:wtf2:

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 05:35 PM
Dwight is the only guy that is always smiling. Sure Kobe and Duncan may smile when they complain to the refs, but when the game is on the line, there is no stupid grin on their faces.

I think that during the first Pistons game this year, Danny banked a 3 in the fourth quarter with less than 5 minutes, and he was laughing about it with a Detroit player. What is so damn funny about trying to win an NBA game?


it is after all a game and entertainment, i would hope they would be having fun.

i see cancer patients all day and i smile a lot

Since86
03-02-2011, 05:37 PM
You need to click the "Qualified" link. They aren't on the Qualified list.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?position=sf&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics%3fposition%3dsf

And yet a player like Caron Butler is behind players like Paul George and Chase Budinger.

I mean, do we really want to put a lot of stock on a stat that's supposed to measure overall efficiency that say's Tyrus Thomas is a better player than Paul Pierce?

It's just not that good of a tool to use to evaluate and compare players.

Mackey_Rose
03-02-2011, 05:37 PM
Dwight is the only guy that is always smiling. Sure Kobe and Duncan may smile when they complain to the refs, but when the game is on the line, there is no stupid grin on their faces.

I think that during the first Pistons game this year, Danny banked a 3 in the fourth quarter with less than 5 minutes, and he was laughing about it with a Detroit player. What is so damn funny about trying to win an NBA game?

I'm one of Danny's biggest/only critics here, but you should just stop. You are only making things harder for the rest of us.

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 05:37 PM
With Danny I really do believe a spade is just a spade. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. However, comparing him to Paul Pierce right now is stupid because 5 years ago Paul Pierce was just a spade.

pierce probably is still a spade, he just has friends now not named fatwan. but i don't really think of paul pierce as the #1 leader of that team.

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 05:38 PM
I find it odd sometimes that PIerce is always brought up in this as a "number 1 guy" really? Because 5 years ago, Paul Pierce was THE big stats on a bad team guy IMO. A guy who once got de-pantsed by Ron Artest and disappeared in huge moments.

Danny ain't a number 1 guy. But Pierce never has been either. And he isn't now.

Why couldn't Danny someday end up like Pierce? With the Pacers trading for two players that IMO, were better than him at their peaks. Yes, I believe Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett were both better players than Pierce at their peaks. So why couldn't that happen to Danny? Fine if you say Danny isn't a number 1 guy, I completely agree with you, but Paul Pierce ain't even close to being a number 1 guy either.

Clutch? Are you kidding me? The guy was a chump for the 10 years of his career. HUGE STATS, but disappeared when it mattered. Granted P4E you would have been like 13 years old 5 years ago.

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 05:38 PM
the only thing is Danny has a smaller sample size

he has also played 12 seasons, compared to Grangers 5.

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 05:39 PM
:wtf2:

Paul Pierce has more talent than Danny thats all im saying




:imout:

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 05:39 PM
I'm one of Danny's biggest/only critics here, but you should just stop. You are only making things harder for the rest of us.

You say this a lot. I don't get it. It's like you're patting yourself on the back because you think you're being anti-establishment when it comes to Danny. 61 people agreed with you in the poll. And a lot of people are in this thread criticizing him. I'd say it's easily split 50/50.

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 05:40 PM
thats what smaller sample size means.

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 05:40 PM
Paul Pierce has more talent than Danny thats all im saying




:imout:

It's pretty clear your Paul Pierce memory is limited to about the past 3 years.

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 05:41 PM
thats what smaller sample size means.

His reply made me LOL.

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 05:41 PM
i think prob more than 50% have turned on granger? certainly a big change from the start of the 09-10 season

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 05:42 PM
:imout:

funniest-smiley-of-all-time

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 05:43 PM
pierce probably is still a spade, he just has friends now not named fatwan. but i don't really think of paul pierce as the #1 leader of that team.

Exactly my point. A lot of people in this thread are saying, Danny Granger can't ever be Paul Pierce...and I'm saying BS. Does anyone remember Paul Pierce before KG and Allen were there?

Now is that number 1 guy in the NBA? A clear cut, I am the leader of this team guy? Nope, but like I said I think there's maybe 13 guys in the league that fit that criteria. And some of them are severely limited in their mental strength and decision making.

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 05:44 PM
It's pretty clear your Paul Pierce memory is limited to about the past 3 years.

I just think he is way more skilled off the dribble than Danny. He also plays defense. Maybe Danny can learn to dribble with his head up. I think Danny would be a very good 3rd option on a contending team just not a 1st option.

BillS
03-02-2011, 05:44 PM
i think prob more than 50% have turned on granger? certainly a big change from the start of the 09-10 season

Can I have the 08-09 Danny back? He really hasn't been the same since the foot problems. Shades of Rik Smits.

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 05:46 PM
thats what smaller sample size means.

i apologize, i took this to mean that Granger had a smaller "sample size" of youtube videos hittiing clutch 3's.

even more reason to believe responding to a statement with youtube videos is not considered a clever response.

no offense p4e sometimes it is good for laugh to rediculous comments ive seen on here.

Granger as a #1 is very debatable. i just think he is a Paul Pierce type talent.

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 05:46 PM
Can I have the 08-09 Danny back? He really hasn't been the same since the foot problems. Shades of Rik Smits.

i think this is more of a mental thing and less of the physical variety. still i would take the 08-09 granger back.

i wish he had the heart of chuck person and the d of ron artest

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 05:46 PM
Exactly my point. A lot of people in this thread are saying, Danny Granger can't ever be Paul Pierce...and I'm saying BS. Does anyone remember Paul Pierce before KG and Allen were there?

Now is that number 1 guy in the NBA? A clear cut, I am the leader of this team guy? Nope, but like I said I think there's maybe 13 guys in the league that fit that criteria. And some of them are severely limited in their mental strength and decision making.

Didnt he make the playoffs a lot with pretty ****ty help? just him and Walker?

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 05:48 PM
i think if danny had that jerkball attitude of PP then he'd be all set. paul pierce is the guy you want to have on your team but you hate if he's on the other team.

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 05:48 PM
I just think he is way more skilled off the dribble than Danny. He also plays defense. Maybe Danny can learn to dribble with his head up. I think Danny would be a very good 3rd option on a contending team just not a 1st option.

Pierce is an ok ball handler. He's learned how to maximize his spacing on the court. Pierce actually handling the ball though is one of the ugliest things I've ever seen. He's just learned how to avoid traps. However, he's also been in the over twice as long as Danny.

Paul Pierce sucked at defense before Kevin Garnett showed up.

Go watch his head to heads with Ron Artest around 2003-2004. Which was about Pierces 5th year in the league, same as Danny. Artest ate Pierce alive at both ends.

There is zero reason Danny couldn't end up some day being what Paul Pierce has been to Boston since KG showed up with Ray. The bigger problem for us is trying to find a guy like Kevin Garnett and a guy like Ray Allen.

oxxo
03-02-2011, 05:50 PM
Saying he's not a #1 guy doesn't mean we don't like him. I don't think he's a #1 guy. I'm a big fan and constantly defend him on message boards and in real life.

I just feel like his game is more suited as a #2 guy. As a #2 guy he's amazing. He doesn't need to dominate the ball and he's proven to be an effective scorer as well as providing other contributions. If we ever get a good creator, then Danny is only going to be that much more effective.

DemonHunter1105
03-02-2011, 05:51 PM
Exactly my point. A lot of people in this thread are saying, Danny Granger can't ever be Paul Pierce...and I'm saying BS. Does anyone remember Paul Pierce before KG and Allen were there?

I always remember he was the only player on the Celtics you had to worry about if his shot was on at the time. I always thought he was pretty good back then but never won the game by himself really. The more I think about the comparison the more I actually agree.

Pierce has more "guard" in him than Danny does. Danny is more of a forward. But if I had to look at it from the opposing team's perspective I bet many of their fans think, "Let's just hope Danny doesn't make it rain from three or get to the FT line too much this game."

I just never wanted to compare DG and PP too closely because I have always thought PP was an arrogant little prick.

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 05:53 PM
Didnt he make the playoffs a lot with pretty ****ty help? just him and Walker?

2001-2002, in a **** poor Eastern Conference. They made the ECF. Their head coach was Jim O'Brien. Yes, it was that bad.

The next season they were a second round knockout.

2003-2004 and 2004-2005, they were beaten consecutively by the Indiana Pacers. Pierce got lit UP in the game 7 of the first round in 05 IN BOSTON by both Reggie and Stephen Jackson if I'm remembering correctly and we beat them by like 30 points.

They didn't make the playoffs again til they acquired KG and Allen. So yes, he made the playoffs, but in a much, much weaker conference. And his success there was middling.

Most years PIerce's stats in the playoffs were significantly worse than the regular season. Clutch? If anything PIerce was the exact opposite until 2008 and his perception suddenly changed. Every day Pierce should get up and shine KG and Ray's shoes to thank them for not being remembered as the most stat hungry Celtic of all time. He went from a guy who would be remembered as the most forgettable Celtic "star" of all time to now a guy who will likely have his number retired all because they got KG and Ray.

naptownmenace
03-02-2011, 05:56 PM
And yet a player like Caron Butler is behind players like Paul George and Chase Budinger.

I mean, do we really want to put a lot of stock on a stat that's supposed to measure overall efficiency that say's Tyrus Thomas is a better player than Paul Pierce?

It's just not that good of a tool to use to evaluate and compare players.

I have no idea what list you're looking at. Paul Pierce is #4. Also, Caron Butler is out for the season and before he was hurt, he was having a down year. This is the list:

RK PLAYER GP MPG TS% AST TO USG ORR DRR REBR PER VA EWA
1 LeBron James, MIA 58 38.3 .580 21.4 11.0 30.2 3.0 18.6 11.3 26.73 538.7 18.0
2 Kevin Durant, OKC 54 39.6 .587 9.2 10.2 28.4 2.6 18.3 10.7 23.73 421.6 14.1
3 Carmelo Anthony, DEN 54 35.7 .543 9.5 9.7 29.2 5.4 19.0 12.4 21.27 309.8 10.3
4 Paul Pierce, BOS 58 34.8 .614 15.5 9.3 21.5 1.4 15.6 8.9 19.59 273.8 9.1
5 Danny Granger, IND 58 36.0 .561 11.2 11.2 24.3 3.4 13.9 8.7 18.12 237.6 7.9
6 Rudy Gay, MEM 54 39.9 .548 12.1 10.7 21.5 4.4 14.1 9.2 17.99 240.5 8.0
7 Andrei Kirilenko, UTAH 54 32.2 .575 19.7 12.0 16.7 6.0 14.6 10.3 16.95 167.5 5.6
8 Grant Hill, PHX 56 30.5 .569 15.2 9.9 18.7 4.3 13.1 8.7 16.05 141.4 4.7
9 Shawn Marion, DAL 59 27.5 .545 8.7 11.9 19.0 8.5 19.3 14.1 16.00 133.4 4.4
10 Wilson Chandler, DEN 54 34.3 .551 9.3 7.3 19.3 3.9 15.6 9.7 15.90 149.5 5.0
RK PLAYER GP MPG TS% AST TO USG ORR DRR REBR PER VA EWA
11 Corey Maggette, MIL 53 22.8 .565 8.9 13.9 25.5 4.0 16.1 9.9 15.71 93.9 3.1
12 Luol Deng, CHI 58 39.1 .549 12.7 9.2 19.6 4.5 13.2 9.0 15.62 173.2 5.8
13 Tayshaun Prince, DET 59 33.0 .510 15.6 6.1 20.0 3.7 13.6 8.4 15.52 146.0 4.9
14 Reggie Williams, GS 58 21.7 .609 14.7 8.0 17.5 3.1 11.0 6.9 15.42 92.3 3.1
15 Paul George, IND 38 18.9 .546 10.8 9.1 17.8 3.4 16.7 10.1 15.13 49.5 1.7
16 Gerald Wallace, POR 50 38.7 .528 12.5 11.1 20.9 4.6 20.6 12.6 15.08 132.1 4.4
17 Chase Budinger, HOU 59 18.9 .535 12.7 7.9 19.2 4.2 17.1 10.6 14.97 74.5 2.5
18 Matt Barnes, LAL 37 20.8 .579 17.9 14.2 16.0 8.5 17.6 13.2 14.95 51.2 1.7
19 Dorell Wright, GS 59 38.7 .544 15.7 9.1 17.9 3.4 12.9 8.0 14.89 149.9 5.0
20 C.J. Miles, UTAH 58 23.8 .506 10.9 7.2 22.9 3.1 12.9 8.0 14.68 85.9 2.9

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 05:57 PM
Seriously go compare Pierce's regular season stats in 01-02, 02-03, 03-04, and 04-05 to his playoff stats from that same time period. Pierce was worse in the playoffs in every single one of those years except 04-05, offensively his %'s are down pretty much across the board.

And 04-05 was game 7 where he got completely destroyed defensively by Jack and Reggie. Pierce is actually a pretty poor playoff performer before the KG-Allen summer. Really probably the anti-clutch.

righteouscool
03-02-2011, 05:57 PM
Didnt he make the playoffs a lot with pretty ****ty help? just him and Walker?

As low seeded playoff fodder in a time when the East was godawful. Nets, Iverson's sixers, on and on could make it to the finals.

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 06:00 PM
Seriously go compare Pierce's regular season stats in 01-02, 02-03, 03-04, and 04-05 to his playoff stats from that same time period. Pierce was worse in the playoffs in every single one of those years except 04-05, offensively his %'s are down pretty much across the board.

And 04-05 was game 7 where he got completely destroyed defensively by Jack and Reggie. Pierce is actually a pretty poor playoff performer before the KG-Allen summer. Really probably the anti-clutch.

At least he made the playoffs We havent made the playoffs in years DG hasnt ever done **** in the playoffs.(not saying it is his fault we havent been to the playoffs)

But you said the east was weak back in the early 2000s it has been pretty weak the last 5 years also.

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 06:02 PM
At least he made the playoffs We havent made the playoffs in years DG hasnt ever done **** in the playoffs.(not saying it is his fault we havent been to the playoffs)

But you said the east was weak back in the early 2000s it has been pretty weak the last 5 years also.

They aren't even comparable. The East was TERRIBLE from 2000 until when the Pistons won in 04. I mean it was B-A-D. Trust me man the quality of basketball was miserable.

A team like the Celtics that won the championship in 07-08 would have had a chance at 70 wins in the East back then. I'm not kidding. All the talent was in the West.

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 06:03 PM
I'd bet my left nut there were Boston Celtics fans have this EXACT SAME CONVERSATION about Paul Pierce in 2006 when he would have been the same age as Danny.

righteouscool
03-02-2011, 06:04 PM
Who were the superstars in the East back then? Kidd, IVerson, and I guess Carter? That's almost entirely what I can recall. The East was routinely smashed in the finals.

Pacergeek
03-02-2011, 06:04 PM
I'm one of Danny's biggest/only critics here, but you should just stop. You are only making things harder for the rest of us.

what is wrong with wanting your team leader to take winning games seriously? Danny smiling during crunch time shows his character. He would rather joke around than take a stern leadership position. You think Peyton would ever smile if he just threw a game tying touchdown in the 4th quarter?

naptownmenace
03-02-2011, 06:05 PM
Put me in the "Paul Pierce is clutch and the #1 player on the Celtics" category. He was named Finals MVP for a very good reason in 2008. I'm a big fan of Paul Pierce, without the wheelchair antics. Pierce is a much better creator off the dribble and has been a better passer than Danny throughout his career. He routinely gets to the free throw line and hits big shots.

Still it sure is a lot easier with guys like Ray Allen and KG spacing the floor for him. Even during the Antoine Walker/Jim O'Brien days "The Truth" had way more talent around him than Danny has now.

Trader Joe
03-02-2011, 06:06 PM
Apparently everyone has forgotten Paul Pierce from 1999-2007...well move on nothing to see here then.

Shade
03-02-2011, 06:07 PM
Danny can be the #1 guy on a contender if the roster around him is strong enough.

See: 2004 Detroit Pistons

Mackey_Rose
03-02-2011, 06:08 PM
You say this a lot. I don't get it. It's like you're patting yourself on the back because you think you're being anti-establishment when it comes to Danny. 61 people agreed with you in the poll. And a lot of people are in this thread criticizing him. I'd say it's easily split 50/50.

Go read through some game threads. Other than croz and myself, who routinely is willing to acknowledge the faults of Granger?

And both of us routinely get criticized for criticizing him.

Using this poll as an example of a consensus about Danny is foolish. Of course nearly everybody said no. It shouldn't have ever even been considered debatable.

Hell look at the list of teams you said didn't have a better player. Other than Cleveland and Toronto, every one a case could be made that they have someone better. So two teams that lost their franchise players in the last offseason, and four or five questionable teams, do not have a better player.

All those teams are amongst the absolute worst in the NBA, yet Danny can be the best player on a contender? Ridiculous.

Pacergeek
03-02-2011, 06:09 PM
Danny can be the #1 guy on a contender if the roster around him is strong enough.

See: 2004 Detroit Pistons

billups, hamilton, rasheed > granger. Granger would have been tayshawn prince on that team.

Kaufman
03-02-2011, 06:32 PM
this may may may be a retarded comment but has anyone ever asked or heard what danny has said about being a number 1 player?

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 06:36 PM
All those teams are amongst the absolute worst in the NBA, yet Danny can be the best player on a contender? Ridiculous.


give Melo, LeBron, Wade, DRose, DWill, Howard, anyone of them the talent surrounding Granger and how do you think they would fare.?

Would Durant get the current pacers into the playoffs? everyone superstar for the most part listed below has a solid #2 option. Danny has a 3rd year center and 2nd year pg, and lets not forgot Dunleavy!!


Im not going to declare Danny a #1, but he is still a very good player, and if we add some talent around him he could produce just as easily as Paul Pierce who some consider a HOF player.

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 06:38 PM
give Melo, LeBron, Wade, DRose, DWill, Howard, anyone of them the talent surrounding Granger and how do you think they would fare.?

Would Durant get the current pacers into the playoffs? everyone superstar for the most part listed below has a solid #2 option. Danny has a 3rd year center and 2nd year pg, and lets not forgot Dunleavy!!


Im not going to declare Danny a #1, be he is still a very good player, and if we add some talent around him he could produce just as easily as Paul Pierce who some consider a HOF player.

If Lebron was on our team we would be a top 4 seed in the east maybe 5th at worst.

Yes Durant would get the current Pacers to the playoffs

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 06:41 PM
If Lebron was on our team we would be a top 4 seed in the east maybe 5th at worst.

Yes Durant would get the current Pacers to the playoffs

i think your reaching.. Bron had vets around him in cleveland.

compare Brons supporting cast with the pacers one currently.

Mo Williams (all star), Parker, Hickson, Z, Jamison, Shaq, Andy V

pacers do not have that kind of talent in the starting lineup.. hell 2 years ago McRob was the 12th man.

.. do i need to insert the "are you serious" icon?

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 06:46 PM
i think your reaching.. Bron had vets around him in cleveland.

compare Brons supporting cast with the pacers one currently.

Mo Williams (all star), Parker, Hickson, Z, Jamison, Shaq, Andy V

pacers do not have that kind of talent in the starting lineup.. hell 2 years ago McRob was the 12th man.

.. do i need to insert the "are you serious" icon?

No Lebron is that good he took a sad cavs team to 66 wins last year.


Shaq and Z lol it isnt 5 years ago same with Antwan

Hickson lol he didnt do anything last year

That team was sad. Put Danny on last years Cavs team they dont make the playoffs and if they do it would be because the east is so bad.

BringJackBack
03-02-2011, 06:48 PM
Hate to admit it, but put Lebron on any team in the league and they are a top 4-6 team in the league. He's that good.

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 06:52 PM
No Lebron is that good he took a sad cavs team to 66 wins last year.


Shaq and Z lol it isnt 5 years ago same with Antwan

Hickson lol he didnt do anything last year

That team was sad. Put Danny on last years Cavs team they dont make the playoffs and if they do it would be because the east is so bad.

bottom line.. none of these superstars can do it alone unless they are named MJ. Kobe sucked pre-Gasoft, Pierce was a good player on a bad team, now he is a good player on a good team.. Danny is no different.

He is not a clear #1, but really doesnt need to be for the pacers to become a contender. We simply need more talent in the starting lineup.

How did Kobe do w/o Shaq? he cried like a :censored: that he wanted traded. We should all be appreciative of Granger for not being a lil :censored: like Kobe or Melo demanding a trade.

Pacergeek
03-02-2011, 06:57 PM
bottom line.. none of these superstars can do it alone unless they are named MJ. Kobe sucked pre-Gasoft, Pierce was a good player on a bad team, now he is a good player on a good team.. Danny is no different.

He is not a clear #1, but really doesnt need to be for the pacers to become a contender. We simply need more talent in the starting lineup.

How did Kobe do w/o Shaq? he cried like a :censored: that he wanted traded. We should all be appreciative of Granger for not being a lil :censored: like Kobe or Melo demanding a trade.

mj had pippen.

Pacergeek
03-02-2011, 06:59 PM
Hate to admit it, but put Lebron on any team in the league and they are a top 4-6 team in the league. He's that good.

Lebron on the Pacers = Pacers go to the Eastern Conference Finals every year.

Trophy
03-02-2011, 07:01 PM
It's amazing how one guy can make or break a team.

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 07:07 PM
mj had pippen.

i will get crucified for this, but i think pippen was overrated and MJ underrated in regard to who really mattered on that team.

Pippen could lock down defensively but he wasnt much more gifted offensively than Granger is. Im not gonna debate this, i just think MJ made the game so much easier for everyone else on those Bulls teams.

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 07:09 PM
i will get crucified for this, but i think pippen was overrated and MJ underrated in regard to who really mattered on that team.

Pippen could lock down defensively but he wasnt much more gifted offensively than Granger is. Im not gonna debate this, i just think MJ made the game so much easier for everyone else on those Bulls teams.

yes we already went thur this with you. Pippen is way better than Granger

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 07:13 PM
yes we already went thur this with you. Pippen is way better than Granger

hence the reason i said i wasnt going to discuss it any further. believe me, i watched every game the bulls and pacers played from early 90s to 98.

without MJ, Pippen was just another very good player, not a #1 that could carry his team throughout his career. as much as i hated MJ, he was the best basketball player i have ever seen play easily.

how old were you anyway P4E when the Bulls and Pacers met in the ECF's?

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 07:16 PM
hence the reason i said i wasnt going to discuss it any further. believe me, i watched every game the bulls and pacers played from early 90s to 98.

without MJ, Pippen was just another very good player, not a #1 that could carry his team throughout his career. as much as i hated MJ, he was the best basketball player i have ever seen play easily.

how old were you anyway P4E when the Bulls and Pacers met in the ECF's?

6 but I have evey game from that series on tape. Most of the games from thast series are on youtube also

Trophy
03-02-2011, 07:20 PM
Danny's favorite player growing up was Scottie Pippen and that's why he wears #33.

I've seen a lot of Pippen in him.

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 07:22 PM
6 but I have evey game from that series on tape. Most of the games from thast series are on youtube also

im not trying to discriminate due to age, but for you to accurately say Pippen is hands down better than Granger i was just curious how you came to the conclusion without really watching a "large sample size."

again, defensively yea Pippen was head and shoulders above, but offensively i dont think the talent was significantly greater on Pippens part.

p4e, your saying Pierce carried the celts to the playoffs.. how many on here think the pacers would be making the playoffs this year w/o Granger?? at least with him there is a chance.

pacer4ever
03-02-2011, 07:26 PM
im not trying to discriminate due to age, but for you to accurately say Pippen is hands down better than Granger i was just curious how you came to the conclusion without really watching a "large sample size."

again, defensively yea Pippen was head and shoulders above, but offensively i dont think the talent was significantly greater on Pippens part.

p4e, your saying Pierce carried the celts to the playoffs.. how many on here think the pacers would be making the playoffs this year w/o Granger?? at least with him there is a chance.

Pierce and Walker carried thier team to the ECF not just the playoffs


When Jordan retired they only won 2 games fewer than the previous year and won 55 games. He is considered one of the 50 greastest players of all time. Pretty much sums it up.

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 07:36 PM
Pierce and Walker carried thier team to the ECF not just the playoffs


When Jordan retired they only won 2 games fewer than the previous year and won 55 games. He is considered one of the 50 greastest players of all time. Pretty much sums it up.

after Walker was traded Pierce didnt do squadoosh.. goes back to what ive been saying this entire thread. none of these superstars can do it on their own.. ask Kobe.

only MJ, and if you honestly believe MJ only improved those bulls teams by 2 games.. then it pretty much sums up why im disagreeing here.

BlueNGold
03-02-2011, 07:40 PM
Ok, I answered the title of the thread not the question. A bit confusing IMHO.

Anyway, now that I know the question...can Danny be the #1 guy on a contender? I would have to say NO. Not in today's NBA where all the talent has drifted to the only teams really capable of contending.

So, I change my answer to NO.

Edit: as to the title of the thread, he's certainly the #1 guy on our team whether we like it or not. If you doubt that, which person would bring more on the open market?

LA_Confidential
03-02-2011, 08:01 PM
So after reading through the thread, I take that many around here think we need an "MJ". Count me in as one of those people.

I voted no by the way.

PacersPride
03-02-2011, 08:14 PM
So after reading through the thread, I take that many around here think we need an "MJ". Count me in as one of those people.

I voted no by the way.

or Pippen and win two less games than if we had MJ. take your pick.

:wtf2:

croz24
03-02-2011, 08:15 PM
in no world is granger even close to the talent level of scottie pippen. and i am not a pippen fan.

Justin Tyme
03-02-2011, 08:32 PM
Saying he's not a #1 guy doesn't mean we don't like him. I don't think he's a #1 guy.



Or that we feel he could be better if he tried. Saying that doesn't make one a hater.

How many have said their children could do better if they just......... It doesn't mean you hate your children, but you want them to be better.

Justin Tyme
03-02-2011, 08:38 PM
I have always thought PP was an arrogant little prick.



:eek::-o

Now, tell us how you really feel.

Mackey_Rose
03-02-2011, 09:05 PM
give Melo, LeBron, Wade, DRose, DWill, Howard, anyone of them the talent surrounding Granger and how do you think they would fare.?

Would Durant get the current pacers into the playoffs? everyone superstar for the most part listed below has a solid #2 option. Danny has a 3rd year center and 2nd year pg, and lets not forgot Dunleavy!!


Im not going to declare Danny a #1, but he is still a very good player, and if we add some talent around him he could produce just as easily as Paul Pierce who some consider a HOF player.

They would be basically as good as the Nuggets, Cavs, Bulls, Jazz, and Magic were with those guys. In other words, much better than the Pacers are currently.

Yes Durant would absolutely get us into the playoffs. Without question.

vnzla81
03-02-2011, 09:09 PM
i will get crucified for this, but i think pippen was overrated and MJ underrated in regard to who really mattered on that team.

Pippen could lock down defensively but he wasnt much more gifted offensively than Granger is. Im not gonna debate this, i just think MJ made the game so much easier for everyone else on those Bulls teams.

http://usera.imagecave.com/webloafer/please.jpg

TinManJoshua
03-02-2011, 10:59 PM
If Danny was everything he's criticized for not being. He'd:

be born in Akron, OH

and

play in Miami right now.

I don't know what Danny is, but I think he's a good NBA player.

PacersPride
03-03-2011, 12:26 AM
They would be basically as good as the Nuggets, Cavs, Bulls, Jazz, and Magic were with those guys. In other words, much better than the Pacers are currently.

Yes Durant would absolutely get us into the playoffs. Without question.

your right, Durant would get the pacers in the playoffs, but not much better than a 5seed. the point is, Durant, Bron and others would still need a supporting cast better than the one the pacers currently have.

I cant see kobe if we exchanged him for Granger getting this team higher than a 6 seed. anyone disagree with this statement?

Kobe could not carry this pacers team into the 2nd round. Durant maybe.

im gonna go ahead answer this poll, i think the wording was a little awkward, but as far as what i think he is trying to get across, Danny Granger is not a #1.

He is a darn good second option though. There are really only maybe ten #1's in the league.

Granger is in a tier with Bosh, Pierce, Allen, Boozer, Gerald Wallace, Josh Smith, Kevin Martin, Tony Parker, Gasol, Zbo, Ellis, and so on.

I will answer No.

PacersPride
03-03-2011, 12:31 AM
http://usera.imagecave.com/webloafer/please.jpg

trust me.. ive sent up numerous prayers on some of the comments ive read of yours.

:pray:

PR07
03-03-2011, 12:33 AM
Yeah, he can be the #1 guy, just on a very mediocre team.

Ideally, he'd be the #2 or #3 option on a really good team.

dgranger17
03-03-2011, 04:46 PM
im not trying to discriminate due to age, but for you to accurately say Pippen is hands down better than Granger i was just curious how you came to the conclusion without really watching a "large sample size."

again, defensively yea Pippen was head and shoulders above, but offensively i dont think the talent was significantly greater on Pippens part.

p4e, your saying Pierce carried the celts to the playoffs.. how many on here think the pacers would be making the playoffs this year w/o Granger?? at least with him there is a chance.

Come on now... not only did Pippen practically (with the exception of Magic, who also invented the point-center) invent the "point-forward,'' but he averaged 17.5 points per game on 44.4% over his career. That's including his last 5 years in Houston and Portland when he averaged 18.3 PPG (33% FG), 14.9 (42), 13.7 (42), 16.3 (46), and 5.8 (41). The Paul Pierce comparison is much more plausible, only because like (I think) Trade Joe said, Celtics fans were having this same conversation before KG, Ray, and Rondo entered the picture

Conference Finals

PacersPride
03-03-2011, 06:23 PM
Come on now... not only did Pippen practically (with the exception of Magic, who also invented the point-center) invent the "point-forward,'' but he averaged 17.5 points per game on 44.4% over his career. That's including his last 5 years in Houston and Portland when he averaged 18.3 PPG (33% FG), 14.9 (42), 13.7 (42), 16.3 (46), and 5.8 (41). The Paul Pierce comparison is much more plausible, only because like (I think) Trade Joe said, Celtics fans were having this same conversation before KG, Ray, and Rondo entered the picture

Conference Finals

Listen, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I watched Pippen and Jordan play so i dont feel like im out of line here.

Anyone who thinks Jordan only added two more wins to the bulls roster needs a shot of reality. Without Jordan you know how many championships Scottie Pippen would have won.. the same amount as Reggie.

This topic is dead to me, i respect others opinions, but w/o MJ, Pippen's greatness would be considerably more down to earth.

Yes, i stated Pierce is a good comparison to Granger, because offensively all three players Pippen, Granger, Pierce are very comparable. Defensivley Pippen was outstanding which sets him apart from everyone else.

Again, w/o MJ, Pippen isnt wearing 6 championship rings.

Rogco
03-03-2011, 06:49 PM
Haven't read the other comments, but the obvious answer is yes, Danny can be a #1 guy in the NBA. The other obvious answer is that IF he is your #1 guy, your team isn't very good.

Don't know if it's basketball savvy, talent or athletic ability, but he he's not in the upper tier or even the second tier of players right now, and he has regressed over the last 2 years. Anyone he defends has huge nights and I don't think I've seen him win a 50/50 ball (or even a 60/40 ball) all year.

He is what he is, an above average but not great player on a bad team who is made to look better because he is the #1 option on said team.

This may sound really negative, but I think it's just realistic. Love the Pacers, love watching them and I think they're talent level is improving. Still, if Granger is your #1 guy you've got very little chance against Boston, Miami, Orlando, Chicago, Atlanta or New York...

LA_Confidential
03-03-2011, 07:13 PM
or Pippen and win two less games than if we had MJ. take your pick.

:wtf2:

Not sure what ur trying to say but Id much rather settle for two measlay 3-peats. I'll take Mike.

PacersPride
03-03-2011, 07:34 PM
obrien affected Grangers game more than any other player the pacers have had the last 4 years. Obrien encouraged Danny to shoot more threes, and focus less on defense as time went on.

its just my humble opinion, but under Carlise (a coach Danny embraced) he would have been a solid all around player. Granger is still only 27 and is not overpaid. we need to add another vet or two before we start trading the only player we do have with experience in the starting lineup.

Isaac
03-04-2011, 02:01 AM
I think Scottie might be the most misrepresented player in NBA history. Anyone who thinks Danny and Scottie are close offensively are completely delusional, comparing the two is just mind boggling if you actually watched Scottie play. I feel like a lot of people state "facts" about Pippen who never really saw him, because if you did you would never say the type of things people say about him. Scottie was an incredibly athletic player who would dunk on the Patrick Ewings of the world with regularity. He finished with authority with both hands in a way Danny could only dream of. He was a SUPERB ball handler and passer who played a point forward role for the Bulls, making it completely unimportant for them to ever add a real point guard. Imagine Danny playing a point forward role. He is a terrible ball handler and a below average passer. Scottie was closer to Magic Johnson or LeBron James than he is to Danny. The two have NO similarities in their games.

Rogco
03-04-2011, 02:24 PM
Seriously go compare Pierce's regular season stats in 01-02, 02-03, 03-04, and 04-05 to his playoff stats from that same time period. Pierce was worse in the playoffs in every single one of those years except 04-05, offensively his %'s are down pretty much across the board.

And 04-05 was game 7 where he got completely destroyed defensively by Jack and Reggie. Pierce is actually a pretty poor playoff performer before the KG-Allen summer. Really probably the anti-clutch.

You can have worse stats but still be clutch. Reggie Miller I believe frequently shot worse in the playoffs than he did during the regular season, but he is the definition of clutch.

Either way, I think Danny's talent and shot are there, but for some reason the hustle isn't. First play against OKC there was a loose pass and Danny just stood there as OKC grabbed the ball and got the steal. Not saying he should have got the ball, but he should have tried. He seems to blame his team mates a lot for defensive breakdown and not covering fast enough when he gets screened, but I think teams have figured out he does a bad job fighting through screens and take advantage of him.

Since86
03-04-2011, 02:35 PM
So let me get this straight.

Danny should have hustled towards a loose ball, a ball that he couldn't get too anyways, but to show that he has hustle he should have atleast attempted to get it?

That makes a lot of sense.

If he can't get to the ball, then he needs to get down the court and get ready to play defense. Running after a loose ball, that you have no shot of getting, puts you out of position for the next possession.

But that's alright as long as he hustles.....

croz24
03-04-2011, 03:39 PM
So let me get this straight.

Danny should have hustled towards a loose ball, a ball that he couldn't get too anyways, but to show that he has hustle he should have atleast attempted to get it?

That makes a lot of sense.

If he can't get to the ball, then he needs to get down the court and get ready to play defense. Running after a loose ball, that you have no shot of getting, puts you out of position for the next possession.

But that's alright as long as he hustles.....

not sure i've seen danny do either

PacersPride
03-04-2011, 03:43 PM
I think Scottie might be the most misrepresented player in NBA history. Anyone who thinks Danny and Scottie are close offensively are completely delusional, comparing the two is just mind boggling if you actually watched Scottie play. I feel like a lot of people state "facts" about Pippen who never really saw him, because if you did you would never say the type of things people say about him. Scottie was an incredibly athletic player who would dunk on the Patrick Ewings of the world with regularity. He finished with authority with both hands in a way Danny could only dream of. He was a SUPERB ball handler and passer who played a point forward role for the Bulls, making it completely unimportant for them to ever add a real point guard. Imagine Danny playing a point forward role. He is a terrible ball handler and a below average passer. Scottie was closer to Magic Johnson or LeBron James than he is to Danny. The two have NO similarities in their games.

Shawn Kemp was a very athletic player as well who could dunk on just about anyone. below are the stats for the two players. Granger is a much better 3pt shooter than Pippen. looking at the stats there are many similarities. the only difference is Pippen had a teammate who could drop 50 on any night.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/663/scottie-pippen
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/2760/danny-granger

anyone who thinks Pippen did not benefit from MJ is delusional. MJ made Pippen great, w/o MJ Pippen would has zero championship rings.

BRushWithDeath
03-04-2011, 03:48 PM
Shawn Kemp was a very athletic player as well who could dunk on just about anyone. below are the stats for the two players. Granger is a much better 3pt shooter than Pippen. looking at the stats there are many similarities. the only difference is Pippen had a teammate who could drop 50 on any night.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/663/scottie-pippen
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/2760/danny-granger

anyone who thinks Pippen did not benefit from MJ is delusional. MJ made Pippen great, w/o MJ Pippen would has zero championship rings.

Without Pippen, Jordan also had zero championships.

Pippen is unquestionably a great player. And unquestionably far better than Danny Granger.

Comparing Granger and Pippen is useless. Granger can't compete. Anyone who thinks Granger is close to as good as Pippen is, to borrow your word choice, delusional.

Since86
03-04-2011, 03:52 PM
not sure i've seen danny do either

Yeah, you're right too. I must have imagined Danny getting his his two front teeth knocked out while diving for a loose ball. And here I thought I had a horrible imagination all this time. Silly me.

This is starting to get ridiculous.

vnzla81
03-04-2011, 03:54 PM
Shawn Kemp was a very athletic player as well who could dunk on just about anyone. below are the stats for the two players. Granger is a much better 3pt shooter than Pippen. looking at the stats there are many similarities. the only difference is Pippen had a teammate who could drop 50 on any night.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/663/scottie-pippen
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/2760/danny-granger

anyone who thinks Pippen did not benefit from MJ is delusional. MJ made Pippen great, w/o MJ Pippen would has zero championship rings.

Stop it, the only thing Danny has that is equal to Pippen is that he is a basketball player that's it, Pippen is a top 50 of all times, Danny is not even top 300.

PacersPride
03-04-2011, 03:58 PM
Without Pippen, Jordan also had zero championships.

Pippen is unquestionably a great player. And unquestionably far better than Danny Granger.

Comparing Granger and Pippen is useless. Granger can't compete. Anyone who thinks Granger is close to as good as Pippen is, to borrow your word choice, delusional.

not my word choice, but the posters below. how many championships did Pippen win without Jordan again??

BRushWithDeath
03-04-2011, 04:05 PM
not my word choice, but the posters below. how many championships did Pippen win without Jordan again??

The same number Jordan won without Pippen.

Was Jordan better than Pippen? Of course. Is Pippen better than Granger? Of course.

Jordan was a great player without Pippen. Pippen was a great player without Jordan. Together they were the best duo of all time.

Trader Joe
03-04-2011, 04:12 PM
I'm not sure what the more ridiculous hypothesis is in this thread, Danny Granger CAN'T be Paul Pierce or Danny Granger CAN be Scottie Pippen.

BRushWithDeath
03-04-2011, 04:17 PM
My god. Comparing a guy who has won 6 championships, 2 Olympic Gold Medals, was named to 3 First Team All NBA-teams, 2 2nd Team All-NBA teams, 2 3rd Team All-NBA teams,8 First Team All Defensive teams, 2 2nd Team All Defensive teams, had 21 career triple doubles, and once led a playoff teams in points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks in the same season to Danny Granger? Lunacy.

PacersPride
03-04-2011, 04:25 PM
I'm not sure what the more ridiculous hypothesis is in this thread, Danny Granger CAN'T be Paul Pierce or Danny Granger CAN be Scottie Pippen.

who here is stating Granger can be Pippen.? the two players games are not similar, Pippen could handle much better and Granger is a much better shooter. defensively Pippen is head and shoulders over Granger right now.

offensively both players are gifted, and despite the differences, offensively they are both capable of the same production.

add MJ to the pacers and how much easier you think it would be for Granger to score as a second option. so many on here complain cause the pacers do not have a closer, Pippen was not a closer, he was not good 3pt shooter, and very average free throw shooter as well.

I watched the bulls and pacers battle throughout the 90's; if Pippen had the supporting cast Granger has had the past few seasons..

murphy, dunleavy, watson, rush, nesto, ford.. as starters i want to add, not bench players, i highly doubt pippen is mentioned in the top 50 all time.

PacersPride
03-04-2011, 04:32 PM
The same number Jordan won without Pippen.

Was Jordan better than Pippen? Of course. Is Pippen better than Granger? Of course.

Jordan was a great player without Pippen. Pippen was a great player without Jordan. Together they were the best duo of all time.

fair enough, its your opiniion, but basically the same team Jordan won 6 championships with, Pippen could do nothing with the two seasons after Jordan retired.

Pippen was the leader of a portland team who could not close out a double digit lead going into game 7 against the LA Lakers in the western conference finals.. that would not have happened with Jordan out there.

i dislike jordan and pippen both, but i respect jordan. again, MJ could drop 50 every night, where do you think all the attn was focused defensively?? it was on MJ, and Pippen was the benificiary of those double/triple teams on MJ.

add MJ to the pacers and maybe Granger could focus entirely on defense since there would be no need for him to be the primary option and focus of opposing teams defense.

Jordan was and is still to this day the greatest player ive ever seen play. like Manning, he made other players around him better. no chance in hell Pippen wins a ring w/o MJ.. whereas MJ would have won 2-3 on determination alone.

BRushWithDeath
03-04-2011, 04:44 PM
no chance in hell Pippen wins a ring w/o MJ.. whereas MJ would have won 2-3 on determination alone.

Jordan won exactly 0 championships without Pippen. Is it possible that he would have won a couple without him? Sure. Maybe even probable. But it is also very possible that Pippen would have won a couple without Jordan.

But dealing in hypotheticals is useless so let's look at what he actually did in that one full season of Jordan's retirement. Not quite nothing as you said.

The Bulls won 55 games in '93-'94 and Pippen finished 3rd in the MVP voting. He led their team in points, assists, rebounds, and blocks. He led the league in steals. He was first team All-NBA. First team All-Defensive. The MVP of the All Star game.

They lost in the Eastern Conference Semis.

The year in which he could do "nothing" is a year that Danny Granger could not even dream about.

PacersPride
03-04-2011, 04:57 PM
Pippen finished 3rd in the MVP voting.

JO finished 3rd in MVP voting once.. as did Peja Stoyakavich, personal awards are pretty much meaningless.

championships are all that matters and w/o MJ pippen won zero. ITS A FACT.

hypothetically i dont know how many MJ would have won w/o Pippen, but my money is on MJ winning more than a goose egg.

BRushWithDeath
03-04-2011, 05:03 PM
This argument is almost as dumb as the Brandon Rush can't shoot threes thread.

naptownmenace
03-04-2011, 05:10 PM
This thread, like most long threads do, has gone off the rails.

Maybe Danny can become a #1 talent player or maybe he can't. Either way, I hope that everyone agrees that he can't be become that type of player without better talent around him.

ilive4sports
03-04-2011, 05:11 PM
JO finished 3rd in MVP voting once.. as did Peja Stoyakavich, personal awards are pretty much meaningless.

championships are all that matters and w/o MJ pippen won zero. ITS A FACT.

hypothetically i dont know how many MJ would have won w/o Pippen, but my money is on MJ winning more than a goose egg.

And MJ won 0 without Pippen. ITS A FACT.

Hypothetically I don't know how many Pippen would have won without MJ. He only had 2 opportunities to do so. If the Bulls only won 2 less games without MJ the season after he left, who is to say they couldn't have won the season before without him.

I love Danny Granger, I think everyone knows this. But he is not on Scottie Pippen's level. Thats a ridiculous statement. Scottie is one of the 50 best of all time, first ballot HOF'er, one of the greatest defensive SF's ever, and very talented on offense. Only thing Granger is better at is shooting.

And championships aren't everything. Are Barkley, Malone, Stockton, and Reggie all terrible players because they didn't win a championship? Hell no.

Isaac
03-04-2011, 05:20 PM
Shawn Kemp was a very athletic player as well who could dunk on just about anyone. below are the stats for the two players. Granger is a much better 3pt shooter than Pippen. looking at the stats there are many similarities. the only difference is Pippen had a teammate who could drop 50 on any night.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/663/scottie-pippen
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/2760/danny-granger

anyone who thinks Pippen did not benefit from MJ is delusional. MJ made Pippen great, w/o MJ Pippen would has zero championship rings.

What does Shawn Kemp have to do with anything? If you are arguing Scottie wasn't a high flyer check this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_--VPPY4lA

Of course Scottie benefited from MJ, but to say that MJ made Pippen great is a ridiculous claim. If anything Scottie's stats would have been higher if he didn't play with Michael. Like has already been stated he lead the Bulls to 55 wins and a second round battle against New York (who knocked us out in the next round) without MJ. The supporting cast the Bulls had that year was not much better than anything Granger has had to work with.

Once again, Scottie was an elite ball handler and passer who could create for himself, get other people in positions to score, dunk on your face, and he consistently shot the ball around 50%. Danny can't do any of those things at all. Not to mention Scottie had 7 season in a row where he averaged over 2 offensive rebounds a game, Danny's offensive rebounding peaked his rookie season.

IGNORING DEFENSE Scottie was several levels higher as a player than Danny is.

Yes, Danny is a better three-point shooter, but so was Voshon Leonard, Dell Curry, Nick Anderson etc.

PacersPride
03-04-2011, 05:40 PM
This argument is almost as dumb as the Brandon Rush can't shoot threes thread.

at least get your facts straight. the argument was Rush is not a consistent 3pt shooter.

rush can shoot 3's, hell mcbob can shoot 3's, but rush is not a consistent 3pt shooter.

by definition that means that when challenged rush is not a very good 3pt marksman. if he is open sure he can perhaps maintain his 42% clip, but if he were really a dangerous shooter from deep he would not be left open as often.

for those of you not following let me ask.. if you have one shot to win a game who do you want taking it.. Granger or Rush?? Granger shoots a 37% clip i believe, whereas Rush shoots 42%?

for those who assume since rush is a 42% shooter he is therefore consistent, you are very mistaken.

BRushWithDeath
03-04-2011, 05:49 PM
Wow.

PacersPride
03-04-2011, 05:49 PM
He only had 2 opportunities to do so. If the Bulls only won 2 less games without MJ the season after he left, who is to say they couldn't have won the season before without him.

I love Danny Granger, I think everyone knows this. But he is not on Scottie Pippen's level. Thats a ridiculous statement. Scottie is one of the 50 best of all time, first ballot HOF'er, one of the greatest defensive SF's ever, and very talented on offense. Only thing Granger is better at is shooting.

And championships aren't everything. Are Barkley, Malone, Stockton, and Reggie all terrible players because they didn't win a championship? Hell no.


So what, Pippens chance with the blazers doesnt count? listen everyone who is having reading technicalities, gett hooked on phonics or something i dont know. I NEVER STATED GRANGER IS ON PIPPENS LEVEL.

Pippen is a much better defensive player, and 50% of the game is defense. Offensively i feel Pippen and Granger are similar production wise. LOOK AT THE STATS I PROVIDED BELOW.

if folks want to use stats, ie like the Brandon Rush 3pt% then im going to do the same darn thing. so again i say, LOOK AT THE STATS OFFENSIVELY.

if according to some, Rush is a better 3pt shooter than Danny Granger b/c of percentage stats, then im saying Granger is offensively equal in production to Pippen based on stats.

Isaac
03-04-2011, 05:57 PM
Obviously the stats between a number one option on a team that hasn't even made the playoffs in a high scoring era can't be compared to the number two option on a perennial championship team in a defensive, low scoring era, but I'll do it anyways.

In Scottie's 5th season he averaged 21 points, 7.7 rebounds, 7 assists on 50 percent shooting while turning the ball over 3 times a game. Michael Jordan averaged 31.5 ppg that season.

In Danny's 5th season he averaged 24 points, 5.5 rebounds, 2.8 assists on 42 percent shooting while turning the ball over 2.5 times a game.

Does that really need to be broken down?

PacersPride
03-04-2011, 06:01 PM
Does that really need to be broken down?

Jim O'brien.

Does that need broken down.

Isaac
03-04-2011, 06:08 PM
Jim O'brien.

Does that need broken down.

If we had Scottie instead of Granger O'Brien would still be our coach.

You said their stats were comparable. You were wrong. Now you are making excuses for Danny's stats (when I'm pretty sure everyone would agree with JOB was certainly good for Danny's stats).

righteouscool
03-04-2011, 06:09 PM
The MVP of the All Star game.


I agree with your premise, but I thought you listing this was LOL worthy.

PacersPride
03-04-2011, 06:12 PM
for those of you who believe rondo would be the same all-star potential HOF candidate had he been drafted by the Pacers instead of Celts, please at least appreciate what playing with greatness does too a players career.

If we draft Rondo over Williams, Rondo comes here and his weaknesses are exposed. He has no shooting ability, and no one too pass too. he would still be a good defensive player though.

playing with three HOF players in KG, Allen, Pierce has made him the player he is today.

Honestly, would have loved to have had Granger here during the 95-04 Pacer teams. Rose was good, Mullin passed his prime, McKey was great defensively, Artest?.. Granger would have been a stud next to Miller.

I would take 16 points, rebounding, and tough d from Granger who can play 3 positions defensively when "full effort" is given.

i could be wrong here.. i think MJ carried those Bulls teams by himself.. one announcer refferred to them as the "Chicago Jordans,."

vnzla81
03-04-2011, 06:45 PM
at least get your facts straight. the argument was Rush is not a consistent 3pt shooter.

rush can shoot 3's, hell mcbob can shoot 3's, but rush is not a consistent 3pt shooter.

by definition that means that when challenged rush is not a very good 3pt marksman. if he is open sure he can perhaps maintain his 42% clip, but if he were really a dangerous shooter from deep he would not be left open as often.

for those of you not following let me ask.. if you have one shot to win a game who do you want taking it.. Granger or Rush?? Granger shoots a 37% clip i believe, whereas Rush shoots 42%?

for those who assume since rush is a 42% shooter he is therefore consistent, you are very mistaken.



http://www.twolvesblog.com/images/stories/collegewolf/jesusfaceplam.jpg