PDA

View Full Version : Not so sure PG will be as good as Danny



McKeyFan
03-03-2011, 08:25 PM
I sure hope he will be. I hope he will be far better.

But I think a lot of people on this forum are forgetting how hard it is for players to go from potential to reality.

It has very little to do with physical talent and proven skills. Players with those two things abound in the NBA. What determines whether you can become a go-to franchise player in the NBA is what happens between the ears. And that's why most players with "P" never get there.

Paul George shows signs of being able to step up and be the man. He's made some buzzer beating shots. He seems to have good judgment, makes some great passes, and has the range of weapons needed to be a team's leading scorer.

But not nearly enough evidence is in. He has not been asked to be our leading scorer. He has not yet had to shoulder any kind of burden like that. Danny has not been injured allowing someone like PG to step up.

It takes a certain kind of mentality—almost weird or antisocial—to be willing to step up as an alpha male and be "the man" on an NBA team. Take Dahntay Jones as exhibit A. He's certainly willing. We needed him to come in against the Thunder and finally put us on the board. Unfortunately, Dahntay doesn't have the tools to be the man. But my point is that this mentality is a bit rare.

Does Paul George have it? Don't know yet. Does Lance? No idea. Does Collison. Doesn't appear to be the case. Heck, my namesake was Exhibit A (Okay B) for having the talent and skills but not the mentality to be a franchise player.

So, let's not give up on Danny for potential just yet. I'd like to see Danny play better defense and I wish he passed better (he's not too bad) and had more weapons.

But guys with the ability to bring you 20 points day in and day out do not grow on trees.

Until we see a real leaf on the tree and not just a few buds, we better keep what we got, unless we trade for someone else averaging over 20 a night.

PacerDude
03-03-2011, 08:32 PM
I was going to start a new thread, but this seems like a good place to add to.

PG wants to get better ?? Maybe he should try something like this:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/lee_jenkins/03/03/derrick.rose/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin

Sure seems to have worked for those guys. Offseason is when players improve their games. That's why I wasn't exactly all for Granger playing for the US team. He didn't have time to work on his game. Roy worked with teachers during the offseason and it shows. Guys just don't get better during the season. It's too late by then.

I think it would work wonders for both DG & PG to get hooked up in a program during the summer.

BringJackBack
03-03-2011, 08:32 PM
What was the general consensus on Danny during his rookie year? Was it basically this?

Day-V
03-03-2011, 08:32 PM
**** that, Paul George is the next Michael Jordan!




*crosses fingers*

CooperManning
03-03-2011, 08:44 PM
What was the general consensus on Danny during his rookie year? Was it basically this?

I remember thinking he'd be a good/very good starter, but not thinking he would ever average 25+ ppg.

MyFavMartin
03-03-2011, 08:51 PM
The general consensus was that half of us thought we should have gone with Gerald Green.

Not sure there was a consensus on DG other than he was a no brainer and TPTB called him a top 5 pick of the draft:

1. Bogut
2. Marvin Williams
3. Deron Williams
4. Chris Paul
5. Raymond Felton

Sookie
03-03-2011, 08:53 PM
It is extremely hard.

But it's rare to have all that talent. Danny isn't as talented as PG.

I also think PG's the type to work hard for it, and wants to be great.

It's not a guarantee that we have a star on our hands. But we've got a really good shot at it.

McKeyFan
03-03-2011, 08:55 PM
I remember thinking Danny could be good, but I was also shocked to see him become an over 20ppg player.

It's just hard to become that kind of player.

Back then, I was hoping Artest could grow into that leading scorer for us. I don't think he ever did for anybody. And he has the Alpha Male mentality. But you also have to be sane.

McKeyFan
03-03-2011, 09:00 PM
The general consensus was that half of us thought we should have gone with Gerald Green.

Not sure there was a consensus on DG other than he was a no brainer and TPTB called him a top 5 pick of the draft:

1. Bogut
2. Marvin Williams
3. Deron Williams
4. Chris Paul
5. Raymond Felton

Yeah, I say Danny was the third best in that draft. The only other one drafted before him that's close (besides Bogut) is Andrew Bynum. Danny's better, unless Bynum goes to another level.

Of course, David Lee went 30 (toss up) and Monte Ellis went 40, and he's arguably better than Danny.

imawhat
03-03-2011, 09:03 PM
Not really a high hurdle with the way Danny's been playing lately.


It's all about effort, experience, desire and strength at this point. Talent and smarts appear to be there. He should be the best Pacer rather shortly.

BringJackBack
03-03-2011, 09:04 PM
Yeah but I'll take any average center who is usually healthy compared to Andrew Bynum who's good for forty games a year. That'd just be sickening to have to deal with that as a fan.

mattie
03-03-2011, 09:07 PM
By the way, this is the exact reason as to why Paul George should have been starting already. He needs 30 mins every night, and he needs to learn and be expected to score within the first unit every night.

It's not really debatable. This should happen.

Seriously if this team had drafted Dwayne Wade, I'd have half expect Wade to ride the bench all season too- Miami made him their number one option half way through the season.

Jrod Jones
03-03-2011, 09:24 PM
Seriously if this team had drafted Dwayne Wade, I'd have half expect Wade to ride the bench all season too- Miami made him their number one option half way through the season.

Miami was in a different situation completely. They were coming off of a 25 win season in which Eddie Jones was the only player to average more than 15ppg. They were in a position to deal with many more growing pains as a team then we are in.

We are in a legit playoff hunt and yes, I think George should be getting 20-25min. And yes, I think he meshes with the starters well. I don't think it would be best for our team to throw him into the 30+min starting role this year. Starting next year I think its a good idea but I want to see what we can do this year first.

pacer4ever
03-03-2011, 09:26 PM
Miami was in a different situation completely. They were coming off of a 25 win season in which Eddie Jones was the only player to average more than 15ppg. They were in a position to deal with many more growing pains as a team then we are in.

We are in a legit playoff hunt and yes, I think George should be getting 20-25min. And yes, I think he meshes with the starters well. I don't think it would be best for our team to throw him into the 30+min starting role this year. Starting next year I think its a good idea but I want to see what we can do this year first.

FYI the Heat made the playoffs that year

mattie
03-03-2011, 09:38 PM
Miami was in a different situation completely. They were coming off of a 25 win season in which Eddie Jones was the only player to average more than 15ppg. They were in a position to deal with many more growing pains as a team then we are in.

We are in a legit playoff hunt and yes, I think George should be getting 20-25min. And yes, I think he meshes with the starters well. I don't think it would be best for our team to throw him into the 30+min starting role this year. Starting next year I think its a good idea but I want to see what we can do this year first.

They were simply a bad team. Just like the Pacers. It's no different. This idea that PG is somehow better coming off the bench because he needs to develop and has more scoring options is just ridiculous.

The goon squad already has a number one and two option and that is the two black holes Hands Bro and DJ. It's not like he has that many opportunities playing 20 mins off the bench. The idea that it will hurt the team is preposterous considering that Rush is simply not that good. PG is already a huge improvement over Rush. He plays better defense, (no matter how hard everyone on this board tells themselves Rush is so great on D), he makes much better decisions, he attacks the basket when given the opportunity, and he is always more than willing to create his own 20 foot jump shot.

Everyone keeps talking about how the starting lineup starts out slow and cannot score any points and then you act as if improving the starting lineup will hurt the team!

We are a very young team that right now just isn't that good. That's why we want to allow the young guys to do what we expect right?

mattie
03-03-2011, 09:42 PM
Like I said though, half this board would argue Wade should ride the bench because "he needs to develop" if he was on our team.. I'm till trying to figure out how this makes any sense at all.

Jrod Jones
03-03-2011, 09:43 PM
The belief isnt that Paul George is better... its that the team as a whole is.

If we gave George 33min a game we would see a lot of ups and downs. Keeping a relative min cap on his games keeps us just that much more consistent throughout the season.

mattie
03-03-2011, 09:47 PM
The belief isnt that Paul George is better... its that the team as a whole is.

If we gave George 33min a game we would see a lot of ups and downs. Keeping a relative min cap on his games keeps us just that much more consistent throughout the season.

We aren't seeing ups and downs now? There is no way the Pacers should be expected to beat the Thunder, but with that said, they obviously played down yesterday, simply terrible.. That's the definition of playing up and down. Again I think it'd be ok to improve the lineup by a lot, even if it meant PG had a couple bad outings... I'm sure the confidence boost by getting the starting lineup and playing the big minutes he needs would be worth it.

Edit- Actually I know it would be worth it, I have enough evidence of almost every rookie who has ever won a starting job ever.

Jrod Jones
03-03-2011, 09:49 PM
I think he should be starting.

What I am saying is that we should not give him full starter minutes.

Trophy
03-03-2011, 09:57 PM
He looks like something special in the making so far.

TheDon
03-03-2011, 10:14 PM
I am probably going to get torched for this but I think Paul George's floor is he is a taller more athletic Marquis Daniels. If you look at their rookie numbers they're an awful lot alike. I also was always surprised with quise's ability to make something out of nothing after a while I just started referring to him as cluster****. Paul George rebounded better than him but that's about it and Quise had less minutes in his rookie year. I really hope he turns out better than just Marquis Daniels though.

vnzla81
03-03-2011, 10:15 PM
Not so sure PG will be as good as Danny


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3494/3929901468_b01941352a.jpg




:-p

beast23
03-03-2011, 10:39 PM
Back then, I was hoping Artest could grow into that leading scorer for us. I don't think he ever did for anybody. And he has the Alpha Male mentality. But you also have to be sane.
I don't know about that. I always said Artest was crazy good. Then it became obvious I was accruate.

BringJackBack
03-03-2011, 10:51 PM
I am probably going to get torched for this but I think Paul George's floor is he is a taller more athletic Marquis Daniels. If you look at their rookie numbers they're an awful lot alike. I also was always surprised with quise's ability to make something out of nothing after a while I just started referring to him as cluster****. Paul George rebounded better than him but that's about it and Quise had less minutes in his rookie year. I really hope he turns out better than just Marquis Daniels though.

I strongly disagree. Paul George right now is better than Marquis Daniels has ever been. Give him Marquis Daniels' minutes in 08-09 (He played about 32 minutes per game) on that piece of crap team and he averages better than 13.6 ppg with more assists and rebounds. Not to mention that Paul George can stay healthy.

As for Marquis' rookie year, he never got significantly better from his rookie year for the rest of his career. Paul George most certainly will because right now he's considered a project and he was drafted on potential, not talent. He is anything but a finished product, in fact he's the polar opposite. Marquis wasn't. Marquis was 23 as a rookie and Paul is 20 with better health and potential on his three point shot. Quis has always had health issues.

Paul George will improve. In one/two years he's expected to make a huge jump in production and assertiveness and his tools will turn into numbers on the court. There's a reason why he has more trade value than Danny Granger (According to a couple articles). And that's not bashing Danny; Paul just has a lot of value.

paul_george24
03-03-2011, 10:54 PM
George has the talent and when I watched him at Fresno State I noticed he had games were he came out and was hot he hit everything like he did with us against Golden State. Then he would come back the next game and kind of have it but it wasn't all there. It is a good thing he got put with the Pacers cause this is a developing team. Now you can correct me if I am wrong cause I will admit I only started watching Pacer games this year cause of PG. I feel that this guy will become somthing great he just needs to get use to the NBA ways and the Pacers is a good team for him to do this.

Merz
03-03-2011, 11:05 PM
he had games were he came out and was hot he hit everything like he did with us against the Thunder. .

:confused:

I hope he gets "hotter" than that.

Indra
03-03-2011, 11:11 PM
As far as I'm concerned Paul George is the complete package right now. He has all the physical tools to be a serious offensive threat, and the fundamentals down to be a strong defender. He has the desire to be the best, and the intelligence to know that he's still got a lot of work to do.

I don't think PG will have any problems with the mental aspect of becoming a great player. He's already shown he wants the ball in his hands when the clock is running down. He's a hard worker and all the talent in the world. We have a diamond in the rough on our hands.

croz24
03-03-2011, 11:15 PM
you made all of those comments about george but ask yourself if danny even fits that bill. he scores points, sure. but he's not an efficient scorer and if you give george 17fga he's bound to put up 24ppg as well but with more assists and far superior defense.

oxxo
03-04-2011, 12:04 AM
I am probably going to get torched for this but I think Paul George's floor is he is a taller more athletic Marquis Daniels. If you look at their rookie numbers they're an awful lot alike. I also was always surprised with quise's ability to make something out of nothing after a while I just started referring to him as cluster****. Paul George rebounded better than him but that's about it and Quise had less minutes in his rookie year. I really hope he turns out better than just Marquis Daniels though.

How in the world can you compare them? All you have to do is watch them play to see they are not even close to similar players. Can't just look at the numbers. I'm sure we could find a horde of players with similar rookie numbers.

Unclebuck
03-04-2011, 12:27 AM
Sure it is potential at this point.

But one thing I am 100% sure of, Paul George is the only player on our roster who has a chance of ever being better than Granger.

Isaac
03-04-2011, 12:33 AM
The general consensus was that half of us thought we should have gone with Gerald Green.



This is so far from the truth...

This board was huge on Danny and most of us predicted he would be a 20+ ppg scorer. I have been reading and posting this board before it was this board in the RATS days and Danny is about as excited as anyone has been about a rookie, yes including PG.

PacersFan1991
03-04-2011, 12:54 AM
George is going to be a dynamic player for years to come. I thought that when we drafted him and still think that. We are lucky to have him on our team.

McKeyFan
03-04-2011, 07:27 AM
As far as I'm concerned Paul George is the complete package right now. He has all the physical tools to be a serious offensive threat, and the fundamentals down to be a strong defender. He has the desire to be the best, and the intelligence to know that he's still got a lot of work to do.

I don't think PG will have any problems with the mental aspect of becoming a great player. He's already shown he wants the ball in his hands when the clock is running down. He's a hard worker and all the talent in the world. We have a diamond in the rough on our hands.
That's my hope as well.

My point is just that wanting the ball when the clock is winding down is not nearly the same thing as shouldering the load of the team night in and night out for an 82 game season.

I'm hopeful it happens, but by no means is it a given.

McKeyFan
03-04-2011, 07:28 AM
you made all of those comments about george but ask yourself if danny even fits that bill. he scores points, sure. but he's not an efficient scorer and if you give george 17fga he's bound to put up 24ppg as well but with more assists and far superior defense.
No doubt.

While the jury is out whether PG has the mental toughness to be "the man" in Indiana, it is also possible that if he can, he will be much better than Danny all around.

Trophy
03-04-2011, 07:33 AM
I think Paul is gonna be a lot like Rudy Gay.

Justin Tyme
03-04-2011, 10:36 AM
As soon as I read the thread title, my memory went back to Granger as a rookie. There was nothing to support that Granger would be as good as he is now, other than Artest thought he had the talent to be good, so I can't see how any decision can be made that PG won't be as good as Granger. Only time will tell. If George puts the time, effort, and work in, I see no reason he can't be as good if not better than Granger.

Let's hope Granger puts the work in this off season to make himself better than he currently is. He needs work on rounding out his game and be more than just a scorer.

Justin Tyme
03-04-2011, 10:44 AM
I am probably going to get torched for this but I think Paul George's floor is he is a taller more athletic Marquis Daniels. If you look at their rookie numbers they're an awful lot alike. I also was always surprised with quise's ability to make something out of nothing after a while I just started referring to him as cluster****. Paul George rebounded better than him but that's about it and Quise had less minutes in his rookie year. I really hope he turns out better than just Marquis Daniels though.


He already shoots 3's better than Quis does now. Has a better looking stroke, and I don't cringe when I see Paul shoot a 3 like I did when Quis did.

BillS
03-04-2011, 10:52 AM
To those who want PG to start NOW, here are my questions, as always:

1) Whose scoring opportunities are you going to take away in order to move him up from the 4th option scorer he replaces in the lineup, and

2) How upset will you be if he starts, his minutes go up, but his stats drop significantly because he stays the 4th option and doesn't get the ball away from the ball-dominant point guard?

I think he has BETTER opportunities for showing what he can do and getting activity to develop on the second unit as it is currently constructed. If the ENTIRE starting lineup is shaken up (which would include moving someone out that will cause Great Honking Chaos on PD), then you can move Paul in.

Justin Tyme
03-04-2011, 10:59 AM
This is so far from the truth...

This board was huge on Danny and most of us predicted he would be a 20+ ppg scorer. I have been reading and posting this board before it was this board in the RATS days and Danny is about as excited as anyone has been about a rookie, yes including PG.


It's not that far from the truth at all. Green was highly wanted by posters on PD, RATS, and Realgm. There were numerous unhappy posters on all 3 forums when Granger got drafted over GG. The unhappiness of the GG fans subsided as Granger started looking good and GG was floundering.

righteouscool
03-04-2011, 11:06 AM
I remember being excited about Granger's defense. Lots of Scottie Pippen comparisons as well.

Justin Tyme
03-04-2011, 11:12 AM
I think Paul is gonna be a lot like Rudy Gay.


Rudy Gay is a player coming out of college I never thought would be as good as he is. He's one of players I'd trade Granger for in a heart beat. I know that will be an unpopular statement with many, but it's how I feel.

While I'm in the mood of making upsetting statements, another player I'd trade Granger, other than obvious James, Wade, Blake G, etc, is for Serge Ibaka. I just really like Ibaka, and I see a bright future for him as a PF for years to come. It's a position that is hard to fill with quality, and I see quality in Ibaka. JMOAA

LA_Confidential
03-04-2011, 11:26 AM
Rudy Gay is a player coming out of college I never thought would be as good as he is. He's one of players I'd trade Granger for in a heart beat. I know that will be an unpopular statement with many, but it's how I feel.

While I'm in the mood of making upsetting statements, another player I'd trade Granger, other than obvious James, Wade, Blake G, etc, is for Serge Ibaka. I just really like Ibaka, and I see a bright future for him as a PF for years to come. It's a position that is hard to fill with quality, and I see quality in Ibaka. JMOAA

Only if OKC gives up James Harden too. With that being said, Not happening.

LA_Confidential
03-04-2011, 11:32 AM
Sure it is potential at this point.

But one thing I am 100% sure of, Paul George is the only player on our roster who has a chance of ever being better than Granger.

While I value your opinion UB, and really I do, I certainly would bank on Roy Hibbert stepping his game up to an All-Star level, especially by the time he turns 27. As our team is currently constructed, Roy is the 2nd best player and arguably our most important asset. I love Danny just as much as the next fan but its fairly obvious that Roy and PG are this teams future.

PaceBalls
03-04-2011, 11:33 AM
Here is the thing if we let PG shoot as much as Danny and if he was the 1st option like Danny, I don't see why he wouldn't be better. Paul is already a better defender, he already has much better handles, he just doesn't have a jumper that is as consistent.

LA_Confidential
03-04-2011, 11:40 AM
The problem is that PG is still only a rookie. He wasnt drafted to be the franchise savior like most top rookies are so we shouldnt expect the coaching staff and front office to treat him as such. He will get his opportunities to assert himself and show if he is the man for the job of #1. Best case scenario, he explodes in the playoffs and catapults not only himself but our team into the national spotlight. If not, oh well get back to work in the summer.

Eleazar
03-04-2011, 03:14 PM
I remember being excited about Granger's defense. Lots of Scottie Pippen comparisons as well.

Then he stopped giving a **** about defense.

Isaac
03-04-2011, 03:18 PM
It's not that far from the truth at all. Green was highly wanted by posters on PD, RATS, and Realgm. There were numerous unhappy posters on all 3 forums when Granger got drafted over GG. The unhappiness of the GG fans subsided as Granger started looking good and GG was floundering.

The question was about the consensus during his rookie year, not speculation before the season started.

BlueNGold
03-04-2011, 08:34 PM
Of course there's no way to tell where PG is going to land. But, here is what I like:

1) He seems more than willing to "take over". He's a supremely confident player IMHO.

2) PG as a very young rookie has better moves to the bucket than Danny. Once he gets stronger and matures...which is going to happen...he will be more effective at converting. Bottom line is...I have very little doubt that PG is going to be better at this.

3) PG is already better at defense than Danny ever was. He will need to learn from rookie mistakes, but he is simply a much quicker player with more athleticism. PG's ceiling here is much higher IMO.

BTW, I've also seen Paul make plays with the ball that I don't think Danny can even do today. Particularly passing the ball. Paul also seems like a better rebounder.

All things considered, I think PG is the most talented prospect I've ever seen in a Pacer uniform. Yes, a prospect...so of course we can only speculate.

mattie
03-05-2011, 10:10 AM
To those who want PG to start NOW, here are my questions, as always:

1) Whose scoring opportunities are you going to take away in order to move him up from the 4th option scorer he replaces in the lineup, and

2) How upset will you be if he starts, his minutes go up, but his stats drop significantly because he stays the 4th option and doesn't get the ball away from the ball-dominant point guard?

I think he has BETTER opportunities for showing what he can do and getting activity to develop on the second unit as it is currently constructed. If the ENTIRE starting lineup is shaken up (which would include moving someone out that will cause Great Honking Chaos on PD), then you can move Paul in.

He's a 4th option on the second unit now. Have you been watching? In fact I think that's a slight exaggeration to assume he's a the 4th scoring option. Either there is no 4th option or he is more like the 6th or 7th option. The first 5 or 6 options are a combination of Tyler and DJ (whoever gets the ball first wins). Followed by AJ.

Roy is not a real strong scoring threat, DC is struggling, and Granger has trouble creating his own shot. I'm trying to figure out how it is a great travesty that PG would start? How is giving someone more minutes suddenly going to force them to forget everything they ever learned about basketball and digress into a scrub?

Everyone complains about how much better the 2nd unit is, which means we at all costs apparently keep the 2nd unit together. God forbid we try to upgrade the starting unit which plays the most minutes against the best players.

Even if PG would start and never get an opportunity to score, (highly unlikely considering the scoring talents the first unit actually has) he would still make the first unit much better with better defense and his ability to actually move without the ball.

This idea the PG is somehow better with the 2nd unit is some of the most crazy, ill-logical thinking I have ever heard in my life. It defies all common sense.

As I have said in another thread, I'm pretty confident that no matter who this team had, even if it was Dwayne Wade in his rookie season; He would play on the bench and half this board would argue this is a good thing because "he needs to develop."

These are the following reasons the "pro-Rush" crowd has come up with in the last few weeks that continue to contradict every other ill thought out idea they have:

1. First, the whole idea that Rush should start in the first place over Dun. This is not hindsight- Rush isn't that good and it was quite clear Dun was a better player. (yet you wanted to start Rush- you aren't good friends with Jim are you?)

2. The 1st unit is soft, has no one who create on his own, and DC (who can actually create) needs to stop shooting the ball so much. In addition there is 100's of complaints that the 2nd unit has to come in and rescue the game after the 1st unit gives away an early 1st quarter lead. (Again, don't we dare try to improve something that isn't working)

3. Paul George should play on the bench because he's a "spark." I still don't know what a spark is in all my time watching basketball. Either you help your team or don't. What qualifies as being a "spark"? Also this is especially funny considering the only time PG ever really gets an opportunity to shoot is the few minutes he's in with the first unit.

4. Paul George can't start because he needs to develop. Again, how is playing less minutes and having less opportunities helping his development? How is telling a young 1st round draft pick he's not good enough to start helping his development? How is having him defer to DJ helping his development? What planet are you guys on?

There's a lot more and I really don't feel like typing them out. But really, some of these ideas are absolutely nuts.

Edit- The worst thinking out of all of this is the idea that in the short term Indiana would be a lesser team with PG starting. This despite the fact that Rush doesn't play team defense (Rush even falls a sleep guarding his man off the ball) and is a non-factor on offense. That's probably the hardest argument to take serious.

mattie
03-05-2011, 10:18 AM
The same people who say Rush should start and PG needs to develop are also probably the same people that argue Danny Granger needs to be traded for Ben Gordon (or some other average player they have convinced themselves is better than he is). Danny Granger is no LeBron James, so having him on the Pacers will obviously hinder them from ever winning. This is clear.

A-Train
03-05-2011, 11:18 AM
Yeah but I'll take any average center who is usually healthy compared to Andrew Bynum who's good for forty games a year. That'd just be sickening to have to deal with that as a fan.

Totally. I feel sooooooo sorry for those poor Lakers fans! ;)

Indra
03-07-2011, 10:28 AM
That's my hope as well.

My point is just that wanting the ball when the clock is winding down is not nearly the same thing as shouldering the load of the team night in and night out for an 82 game season.

I'm hopeful it happens, but by no means is it a given.

Nothing is certain but death and taxes, but I would say all indications are that he is going to be really special for us. He's barely half way through his first season ever. Let him develop before we start talking about his ceiling.

BillS
03-07-2011, 10:47 AM
He's a 4th option on the second unit now. Have you been watching? In fact I think that's a slight exaggeration to assume he's a the 4th scoring option. Either there is no 4th option or he is more like the 6th or 7th option. The first 5 or 6 options are a combination of Tyler and DJ (whoever gets the ball first wins). Followed by AJ.

Roy is not a real strong scoring threat, DC is struggling, and Granger has trouble creating his own shot. I'm trying to figure out how it is a great travesty that PG would start? How is giving someone more minutes suddenly going to force them to forget everything they ever learned about basketball and digress into a scrub?

Passing over the sarcastic nature of this response, I think PG is at worst 3rd option on the second unit - the thing about that unit is that its offense is very much designed to use whoever has the best chance against the other team's bench defense. Dahntay and Tyler don't pass the ball out much (though more, I think, than many people claim, I don't think they are the "early receive never leave" black holes people love to say they are), but they usually aren't given the ball unless they are supposed to be the focal for a play.

What you say about the first unit is certainly true. But, even assuming that PG will maintain his strengths against other teams' starters, by moving him in and above the other players in the first unit you are saying one or more of the following:

1) Roy in the post is no linger a primary option for the team - something people have complained about for months if it didn't happen, and now you are dumping it in on purpose in favor of PG.

2) DG is not going to get the ball on offense, where he has at least been somewhat effective. Why even start him, then - and if you bench him, you are making a pretty heavy comment on his abilities and future with the team. Are you willing to do that in favor of a rookie?

3) DC's game is to have the ball in his hands and be a scoring option. If you take that away from him, you are (again) doing exactly what people have screamed about - forcing him to play a system that isn't his best and failing to make him effective.

You'd better be pretty damn sure of your guy if you do any of these things.

For the most part, I am not totally against PG as a 4th-option starter, but his personal statistics will drop significantly UNLESS the offense is changed to work him in. When his stats drop, who gets the blame - or do people turn on him since he 'obviously' is failing in a starting role?

And I know you aren't lumping me in as some kind of "Rush lover" who only wants PG coming from the bench because I am emotionally invested in Brandon. After all, I'm one of the moronic Dunleavy lovers.

nyballer31
03-07-2011, 11:25 AM
To those who want PG to start NOW, here are my questions, as always:

1) Whose scoring opportunities are you going to take away in order to move him up from the 4th option scorer he replaces in the lineup, and

2) How upset will you be if he starts, his minutes go up, but his stats drop significantly because he stays the 4th option and doesn't get the ball away from the ball-dominant point guard?

I think he has BETTER opportunities for showing what he can do and getting activity to develop on the second unit as it is currently constructed. If the ENTIRE starting lineup is shaken up (which would include moving someone out that will cause Great Honking Chaos on PD), then you can move Paul in.



I'm not sure if I want to start Paul George but I can see why people would want to start him.Right now the 2 guard spot is a question mark going into the offseason.It's a position we may look to spend alot of money on (Crawford,Richardson) so why not see if George can play that spot so we don't have to spend alot of money on getting another one.

To answer your first question this team doesn't have good enough scorers to worry about whether inserting Paul George takes shots away from Granger,Hibbert,Collision ect.

Secondly we don't even have a second big scorer right now.Granger averages 20ppg and after that we have two guys averaging 13pts a game.There is more then enough room to add a second scorer Whether that becomes George or we trade/sign somebody. Hibbert would also benefit at this stage of his career being a 3rd scorer/option.Our starting lineup right now is way to easy to defend.I don't know if Paul George would help any but I would be interested to find out.

Really?
03-07-2011, 01:10 PM
I think people just need to let him(paul) grow... everyone wants him to succeed but ultimately it is up to him and the people around him (coaches, friends, family, teammates, agent).

On another note

Honestly we should be happy that Danny has stayed around Indianapolis as long as he had, maybe he is no Kobe or even Carmelo but he is a good player and could definitely go to another team and start.

PG is okay, but like I have said before you will never know how good he is until we have plays called specifically for him, and until other teams start game planning for and scouting him on tapes.

Can't believe how much unappreciation Danny gets on some of these threads.