PDA

View Full Version : Where is the real Danny Granger when we play big games?



Foul on Smits
03-04-2011, 11:54 PM
More often then not, he doesnt show up. Or do i need to come to grips with the fact that this is the real Danny Granger? The Pacers need a star player. He's not a star player.

Pacer Fan
03-05-2011, 12:01 AM
Will the Real Danny Granger Please Stand Up!!!

BringJackBack
03-05-2011, 12:03 AM
Danny isn't a guy to build the team around, but he is crucial for us going forward. He's a second/third fiddle guy stuck on a team with no first fiddle guy and a bunch of un-clutch players so he has to do it all.

Danny should not be expected to carry the team. He is not Lebron/Wade/Kobe/Melo etc.. I can understand the frustrations with his effort, but expecting im to score like a mad man in fourth quarters is asking for too much.

croz24
03-05-2011, 12:06 AM
don't understand why we can't allow george or lance the opportunity to be that guy right now.

O'Braindead
03-05-2011, 12:16 AM
don't understand why we can't allow george or lance the opportunity to be that guy right now.

Do you know Tyreke Evans and Demarcus Cousins? That is why you do not do that. The young guys will learn to make terrible mistakes if you give them the green light as the number one option on a team.

ilive4sports
03-05-2011, 12:17 AM
Wait, you're making this thread now? After Danny has been hitting shots and getting to the line in the 4th a lot lately?

Heisenberg
03-05-2011, 12:19 AM
Danny kept us within striking distance multiple times this game.

croz24
03-05-2011, 12:22 AM
Do you know Tyreke Evans and Demarcus Cousins? That is why you do not do that. The young guys will learn to make terrible mistakes if you give them the green light as the number one option on a team.

do you know michael jordan, magic johnson, larry bird, kobe bryant, dwyane wade, derrick rose, lebron james, carmello anthony, etc? that is why you can very well do that. evans and cousins have never been known to being strong mentally and have questionable pasts. paul george does not.

Mackey_Rose
03-05-2011, 12:42 AM
That is the real Danny Granger.

IndySDExport
03-05-2011, 01:02 AM
do you know michael jordan, magic johnson, larry bird, kobe bryant, dwyane wade, derrick rose, lebron james, carmello anthony, etc? that is why you can very well do that. evans and cousins have never been known to being strong mentally and have questionable pasts. paul george does not.

I notice how you don't mention Lance here like you did in your previous post.

I do think Paul should start though. Needs more shots than he gets in the 2nd unit with everyone chucking the ball up.

croz24
03-05-2011, 01:25 AM
I notice how you don't mention Lance here like you did in your previous post.

I do think Paul should start though. Needs more shots than he gets in the 2nd unit with everyone chucking the ball up.

right because i don't trust lance much like i wouldn't trust evans and especially cousins. point is, you don't know if you have a clutch, go-to type of player unless you give that player an opportunity. granger has had several chances to take control and he fails the vast majority of the time. it's time to let someone else try to take control.

SMosley21
03-05-2011, 08:23 AM
To avoid making a thread about it, I'll just say this...

Danny Granger has lost his desire to be great. He hit his ceiling 2 years ago and is on a pretty steady decline. He shows very poor decision making, and at times very little heart/concern about winning games. If we were to trade him in the offseason, I woudln't be at all upset as long as we got back DECENT talent (because that's all he is at this point).

PacerPenguins
03-05-2011, 08:32 AM
u only see danny play good when he plays bad teams

yoadknux
03-05-2011, 08:44 AM
Granger led us in scoring (as always..) and made two important threes. And you still criticize him.
I mean, what do you think, that he could win games all by himself?
Danny doesn't have great iso. When he goes inside, the best scenario is him going to the line. I like it when he finishes around the rim but he doesn't dunk, it's all layups, and these kind of layups are pretty 50/50 (if they aren't blocked). Danny is the type of guy that needs to get good looks and knock them down. But when he's the only consistent scoring option, its hard to get good looks.

PacerPenguins
03-05-2011, 09:04 AM
Granger led us in scoring (as always..) and made two important threes. And you still criticize him.
I mean, what do you think, that he could win games all by himself?
Danny doesn't have great iso. When he goes inside, the best scenario is him going to the line. I like it when he finishes around the rim but he doesn't dunk, it's all layups, and these kind of layups are pretty 50/50 (if they aren't blocked). Danny is the type of guy that needs to get good looks and knock them down. But when he's the only consistent scoring option, its hard to get good looks.

if paul george shot as much as danny he could easily average 23 pts

Pacersalltheway10
03-05-2011, 09:12 AM
Why do we need a star player? If all of our guys step up we wont need that star. The 1999-2000 Pacers squad didnt have a true star but had guys who stepped up.

huber14
03-05-2011, 09:20 AM
where are his teammates?

yoadknux
03-05-2011, 09:58 AM
if paul george shot as much as danny he could easily average 23 pts
Yes, you're right, and also get 10 more rebounds, 10 more assists, 3 more blocks, 5 more steals
Paul George is a SUPERSTAR !! GRANGER SUCKS

SMosley21
03-05-2011, 10:35 AM
Looking at the box score, sure Danny typically leads us in points. He also leads us in FG attempts, all the while shooting a pretty crappy %. The only players with a worse FG% than Danny are Price, Ford, Posey, Solo, Lance, Hansbrough, and he's tied with Rush. Danny also leads the team in turnovers, and is 2nd on the team in fouls per game. As I said before, he hit his ceiling 2 seasons ago and he's on a steady decline.

mattie
03-05-2011, 10:39 AM
Looking at the box score, sure Danny typically leads us in points. He also leads us in FG attempts, all the while shooting a pretty crappy %. The only players with a worse FG% than Danny are Price, Ford, Posey, Solo, Lance, Hansbrough, and he's tied with Rush. Danny also leads the team in turnovers, and is 2nd on the team in fouls per game. As I said before, he hit his ceiling 2 seasons ago and he's on a steady decline.

Wrong, thanks for playing. DG efg% is .497. That's .001 less than Dwayne Wade. It's also better than LeBron and Kobe's shooting percentage.

This doesn't even take in account his incredible shooting over the entire Vogel period.

mattie
03-05-2011, 10:41 AM
here's a hint: When you shoot a lot of threes, your overall FG% will be lower than say, a low post player. (A light bulb blinks on in SMosley21's head)

A-Train
03-05-2011, 10:47 AM
Why do we need a star player? If all of our guys step up we wont need that star. The 1999-2000 Pacers squad didnt have a true star but had guys who stepped up.

Because the NBA is a star driven league and you don't win championships without a true star. While the 2000 team was good, they couldn't beat the Lakers (two stars).

Mackey_Rose
03-05-2011, 11:27 AM
here's a hint: When you shoot too many threes, your overall FG% will be lower than it should be. (A light bulb blinks on in mattie's head)

Fixed.

mattie
03-05-2011, 11:33 AM
Fixed.

How in any way is Granger taking too many threes? As good as a shooter as he is, he should definitely be getting to the foul line a lot more (as he has been since Vogel took over) and taking some higher percentage shots. But again, how is he taking too many threes? He shooting at 39% behind the arc, and well over 40% ever since Vogel took over.

For the record Mackey.. If Granger starting taking a lot less threes, let's say 2 or less per game, his efg% would definitely go down. That is obviously one of Grangers major strengths.. That's what you're arguing then? That he stop doing what he best at? (if he took way less three's at least it would appear to a mindless lemming like you that he was shooting better since his FG% would go up, while his eFG% would go down)

Pacer Fan
03-05-2011, 11:35 AM
Ya know, I really don't understand why people say Danny sucks, he has been doing what the coaches tell him. JOB wanted him to spread the floor and he did a pretty good job doing it. Vogel wants him to be more selective in his 3 pt shots and work inside more and he's done a pretty good job. He is obveisly trying to get other players involved because he passes alot more. It is a team sport and Pacers can't get to the next level without team chemistry.

He is a major focus for opposing teams. He gets double teamed quite abit. I know his defense hasn't been there lately, but he's generally a decent defender. For once, Danny has a decent team with alot of potential and Danny and the Pacers have to tap that potential. Don't blame Danny for the teams failure. If he does his job and some of the other players don't and they don't win, it shouldn't be Danny's fault that he didn't do enough at the end.

He carried this team for the past few years, it's time for the team to carry itself. I do believe you will see Danny more involved in the playoffs. I hope he does't prove me wrong.

:dance::dance:

Jon Theodore
03-05-2011, 11:43 AM
Danny Granger has been getting bailed out by the refs a lot lately, his drives to the lane are just terrible but refs will give him the call (especially if he is driving against a younger, non established player.)


Lance Stephenson was straight ballin last night. That guys passing ability really surprised theheck out of me, he certainly looked like a point guard to me. He also looks like a guy who could probably create a better shot for himself than Granger could. I would let Lance/George play every minute in crunch time until they blew the opportunity.

Collison should not be playing in the 4th quarter...ever. I'd rather see Price, Stephenson, or D. Jones (in that order).

Trophy
03-05-2011, 11:47 AM
What I can't stand is him pulling off the "old system" and dribble down the court and immediately take a 3.

Mackey_Rose
03-05-2011, 12:00 PM
How in any way is Granger taking too many threes? As good as a shooter as he is, he should definitely be getting to the foul line a lot more (as he has been since Vogel took over) and taking some higher percentage shots. But again, how is he taking too many threes? He shooting at 39% behind the arc, and well over 40% ever since Vogel took over.

For the record Mackey.. If Granger starting taking a lot less threes, let's say 2 or less per game, his efg% would definitely go down. That is obviously one of Grangers major strengths.. That's what you're arguing then? That he stop doing what he best at? (if he took way less three's at least it would appear to a mindless lemming like you that he was shooting better since his FG% would go up, while his eFG% would go down)

He takes several bad shots per game. Many of them are bad/contested threes. Even if they go in, as some occasionally do, they are still bad shots.

I'm a mindless lemming because I'd rather see us get better shots that are more likely to go in, and less likely to start a fast break the other way?

Then yeah I'm a mindless lemming. Maybe you just abide by the JOB/flox doctrine. Common sense, smart basketball is boring, lazy basketball.

mattie
03-05-2011, 12:07 PM
He takes several bad shots per game. Many of them are bad/contested threes. Even if they go in, as some occasionally do, they are still bad shots.

I'm a mindless lemming because I'd rather see us get better shots that are more likely to go in, and less likely to start a fast break the other way?

Then yeah I'm a mindless lemming. Maybe you just abide by the JOB/flox doctrine. Common sense, smart basketball is boring, lazy basketball.

Actually no he doesn't. The last 2 seasons he was, emphasis on the past tense.

Ever since Vogel took ever he has been very good with his shot selection with the only exception being he has forced too many drives. Too many out of control drives. He needs to fall back on his post game.

But even then, the threes he takes have never been the problem. For the most part all game he takes quality open threes... It's only when he tries to drive, gets stopped and then settles for a real bad jumper that has been a major issue over the last probably three seasons.

Again, Granger is a shooter, and to act like he shouldn't be shooting threes is wrong.

If anything what this has shown is Granger should learn to move without the ball much better, to get more open jumpshots, and he should rely on his post game instead of driving to the basket as much as he does.

Edit- Once again, in case everyone missed it- Danny is shooting very well this season, and the only problem with his shot selection are out of control drives, and settling for a well defended jump shot after his drive to the rim was thwarted.

His three point shooting is excellent.

mattie
03-05-2011, 12:23 PM
By the way, and this is only comparing three point shooting- Granger does everything Reggie used to do. Reggie would pull up on a fastbreak and take a three. The dribbling up and shooting a three? Reggie did all of that, and just like Granger, Reggie shot an excellent percentage.

Granger's problem has been forcing those well contested 20 foot jumpshots... It's like you look at last nights box score, see that danny shot 42% from the field, and then the next game see him miss a wide open three pointer with 20 second on the clock and assume that is the problem. Guess what? It's not. Get it through your head.


Last night Danny had a shot selection problem. He shot 40% from the field. Anyone want to guess what the problem was? Here's another hint: He shot 42% from downtown.

tflo
03-05-2011, 05:52 PM
What I can't stand is him pulling off the "old system" and dribble down the court and immediately take a 3.

I think just the oppisite what you are saying about Danny Granger. He is shooting .391 from three point range. I think he needs to do it more often. By the way if we played the old system against Oklahoma City I think we might of been more competitive. They went to the paint to many times with no possitive results.

tflo
03-05-2011, 06:01 PM
I think just the oppisite what you are saying about Danny Granger. He is shooting .391 from three point range. I think he needs to do it more often. By the way if we played the old system against Oklahoma City I think we might of been more competitive. They went to the paint to many times with no possitive results.

Hey by the way I am not Jim O'Brien.

AesopRockOn
03-05-2011, 06:23 PM
I'm much more concerned about people calling for Stephenson to start and play over Collison right now than anything involving Danny.

Roy's bi-polarity too.

pacer4ever
03-05-2011, 06:26 PM
I'm much more concerned about people calling for Stephenson to start and play over Collison right now than anything involving Danny.

Roy's bi-polarity too.

Start? lol who said he should start?? He is fine in the role he is in now. Untill he gets in game shape and ready to log more mintues. Which might take another month.


EDIT* And I want to see more of DC and Lance together with DC off the ball that seemed to work in small stetches.

Trophy
03-05-2011, 06:34 PM
I think just the oppisite what you are saying about Danny Granger. He is shooting .391 from three point range. I think he needs to do it more often. By the way if we played the old system against Oklahoma City I think we might of been more competitive. They went to the paint to many times with no possitive results.

I don't want you to get the impression that I'm against Danny. I'm usually the first to defend him.

I have no problem with him taking that trailing 3, but he needs to make it a good one. Don't take it because he feels like he needs to or to get the score close. He takes it sometimes when there's still guys right in front of him.

He's a deadly shooter though.

tflo
03-05-2011, 06:45 PM
I don't want you to get the impression that I'm against Danny. I'm usually the first to defend him.

I have no problem with him taking that trailing 3, but he needs to make it a good one. Don't take it because he feels like he needs to or to get the score close. He takes it sometimes when there's still guys right in front of him.

He's a deadly shooter though.

I think we get all get a little upset when the Pacers lose especially me, probably more than others. We just have to remember that this is a very young team and we need to give them time to improve.

Go Pacers.

Dr. Hibbert
03-06-2011, 02:23 AM
I don't understand the undying loyalty toward Danny. Never will. Some of you treat him like he's Reggie or something, untouchable. I don't get that at all.

The Danny situation is always tricky because I can see tenets of both sides. Pro-Danny, the guy has gone through three coaches in his tenure and some of the rockiest time in Pacers history. In that time, he's been asked to be the face of the franchise and the #1 option...despite not really being ideal for either. For the most part, he has said and done all the right things (poorly-worded Indy comment aside) despite the franchise being completely inconsistent. You understand if he has any frustrations resulting from that.

That said, night in and night out, I just don't see the kind of effort out of Danny that the Pacers are paying him for. You can throw out adjusted stats and this and that all you want, but I see a guy who completely plays like he's going through the motions in the first half and then usually plays ball in the second half. I see a guy who is way too sloppy with the ball for a player with his experience and a guy who is a major part of the reason his team falls into big first half holes. I see a guy who doesn't give 100 percent for the entire game. He's not the only one on the roster with that problem, certainly, but he's the most noticeable. And when he gives 100 percent in the fourth quarter, it's like some fans magically forget he didn't even show up until the second half.

I think, likely, Danny is extremely frustrated with Bird and this franchise right now and probably doesn't want to be a part of this screaming locker room after all the crap he's already gone through with this team. It's like going to work when the last few years at your job have been hell and nothing is looking to improve any time soon. Of course, it's also like going to work and getting paid an absurd amount of money to do so and subsequently not performing to your pay grade.

Personal opinion? Danny doesn't give his all for this team anymore. He's not the only one and everyone else who shrugs their shoulders or is careless on a nightly basis should be just as open for criticism. But he's getting the most money to show up small when his team needs him to rise above that, and he also has too much experience to be playing as poorly as he has in the first half of most games this season.

Dr. Hibbert
03-06-2011, 02:30 AM
I think we get all get a little upset when the Pacers lose especially me, probably more than others. We just have to remember that this is a very young team and we need to give them time to improve.

Go Pacers.

How many years is this going to be a young team that needs time to improve, though? Three years ago, that's what I heard. Two years ago, certainly. Was the championed excuse all year last year, too.

This is a team and a franchise without much direction at this point. How anyone can trust Bird's vision is beyond me. I enjoy the little things this season and certainly see the potential of building around guys like PG, Hansbrough, Lance, DC, etc. But I feel like I've been saying "young" and "potential" for too long now, certainly too far into Bird's infamous Three Year Plan. To me, it just seems like the Pacers have a bunch of promising role players every year and, two years later, have another set of promising role players, or that old set never really developed into much.

I think PG changes that dynamic because he's a legitimate "build around me" talent, in my opinion. He's a player who has the opportunity to change the dynamics of this franchise if he puts the work into it. The question is how long it takes Bird to do that when this franchise has been in "young and learning" mode for three years already.

Eleazar
03-06-2011, 03:33 AM
How many years is this going to be a young team that needs time to improve, though? Three years ago, that's what I heard. Two years ago, certainly. Was the championed excuse all year last year, too.

This is a team and a franchise without much direction at this point. How anyone can trust Bird's vision is beyond me. I enjoy the little things this season and certainly see the potential of building around guys like PG, Hansbrough, Lance, DC, etc. But I feel like I've been saying "young" and "potential" for too long now, certainly too far into Bird's infamous Three Year Plan. To me, it just seems like the Pacers have a bunch of promising role players every year and, two years later, have another set of promising role players, or that old set never really developed into much.

I think PG changes that dynamic because he's a legitimate "build around me" talent, in my opinion. He's a player who has the opportunity to change the dynamics of this franchise if he puts the work into it. The question is how long it takes Bird to do that when this franchise has been in "young and learning" mode for three years already.

I don't understand how we have been asking for the young players for too long? For most of them this is only their first or second season. This might as well be McRoberts second season, which really only leaves Granger, Foster, Rush, and Hibbert. Both Rush and Hibbert are in their third year. While I can understand the frustration with those two I can't understand the frustration with the others. This team has only been rebuilding for 2 years now, which isn't long enough to be getting frustrated.

Dr. Hibbert
03-06-2011, 02:49 PM
I don't understand how we have been asking for the young players for too long? For most of them this is only their first or second season. This might as well be McRoberts second season, which really only leaves Granger, Foster, Rush, and Hibbert. Both Rush and Hibbert are in their third year. While I can understand the frustration with those two I can't understand the frustration with the others. This team has only been rebuilding for 2 years now, which isn't long enough to be getting frustrated.

It's Year 3 of Bird's (in)famous rebuilding plan, and this team is still not playing defense and still might not make the playoffs in an incredibly weak Eastern Conference. The team is still fighting. The coaching situation is still unsettled.

I think fans have every right to be frustrated.