PDA

View Full Version : Still think Granger is not our answer



#22
04-22-2011, 10:12 AM
I have been saying all along that Granger is a great player, but he is not a leader that you build a team around. He has a great shot, but zero intangibles.

Far too many times this year, I've watched the Pacers all stand around at the end of the game while Granger puts of a ****ty 3 pointer or 19 foot jumper that rims out.

hibbert, hansbrough, and collison are who the Pacers need to build around, not Granger

An example:


go back and watch with 17 seconds left, tied game, everyone knows that Rose is going to drive and try to draw a foul, Grager actually STEPS OUT OF THE WAY right before Rose puts his layup in. Take a charge, steal the ball, try to block it !!!!! Anything but step out of the way. All the "little things" that leaders and great players do, he does none of them.

I've been saying this since week 2 of the season.

vnzla81
04-22-2011, 10:21 AM
Nobody said he was the answer, maybe a few homers but pretty much everybody agrees that he is not Batman.

rexnom
04-22-2011, 10:23 AM
Were you saying this after he hit four straight shots to single-handedly keep us in the game?

yoadknux
04-22-2011, 10:24 AM
Oh come on.
If he gets closer there's contact = a foul = "OMG GRANGER RUINED THE GAME FOR US"
If he gets too close, Deng gets an open three = "OMG GRANGER DOESNT PLAY DEFENSE"
The game was close BECAUSE of Granger and the way he played in the 4th. He was our best player last night, by far.
Granger isn't the leader, Vogel said DC is. there's nothing wrong with that.

Looks like Danny is the new scapegoat. The new JOB. The only player who consistently played well in the series so far is to blame for our losses.:rolleyes:

vapacersfan
04-22-2011, 10:32 AM
Danny granger is Robin being asked to play both Batman and Robin.

I disliked a few of his shots in transition, but he played a damned good game.

The Pacers did not lose because of Danny Granger.

MagicRat
04-22-2011, 10:36 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSVmqhpmhA0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

SMosley21
04-22-2011, 10:36 AM
The stupid threads are just rolling in right now.

daschysta
04-22-2011, 10:38 AM
Don't blame granger for being who he is. We need to get another player to compliment him, that specializes in attacking the basket.

Danny would be an absolutely elite second option imo. He's playing really well as a jumpshooter facing double teams, he'd absolutely roast teams if he were able to play off another player.

Don't blame the guy that singlehandedly kept us in the game with his clutch scoring.

SMosley21
04-22-2011, 10:38 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSVmqhpmhA0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

What's that? Granger attempting to come over on help defense and attempting to block the shot? Say it isn't so, because that would make this thread completely pointless.

Anthem
04-22-2011, 10:50 AM
Think of Granger as a Reggie at SF. Dude's good, but won't succeed without solid play from other positions. We needed some offensive production from C, PF, or SG last night.

binarysolo
04-22-2011, 10:56 AM
this series has made me think better of Granger, not worse

Mackey_Rose
04-22-2011, 10:57 AM
Oh come on.
If he gets closer there's contact = a foul = "OMG GRANGER RUINED THE GAME FOR US"
If he gets too close, Deng gets an open three = "OMG GRANGER DOESNT PLAY DEFENSE"
The game was close BECAUSE of Granger and the way he played in the 4th. He was our best player last night, by far.
Granger isn't the leader, Vogel said DC is. there's nothing wrong with that.

Looks like Danny is the new scapegoat. The new JOB. The only player who consistently played well in the series so far is to blame for our losses.:rolleyes:

I'd absolutely take my chances with either Rose at the free throw line, or an exhausted Deng taking an open three, rather than Rose being allowed an easy lay-up.

But maybe that's just me.

daschysta
04-22-2011, 10:58 AM
The answer is someone else stepping up and giving danny some damn help. He almost won the game for us with Jones being our second leading scorer at 13 points. He's been the only pacer that has consistantly raised his level overall for the playoffs (other than george). Hans and DC showed flashes, but we need that consistant 1A or even second option. If we had that we wouldn't be down 3-0.

troyc11a
04-22-2011, 11:04 AM
The answer is someone else stepping up and giving danny some damn help. He almost won the game for us with Jones being our second leading scorer at 13 points. He's been the only pacer that has consistantly raised his level overall for the playoffs (other than george). Hans and DC showed flashes, but we need that consistant 1A or even second option. If we had that we wouldn't be down 3-0.

He also got outplayed by Deng. Of course, that may not be a bad thing to say condsidering Deng looked all-world last night.

Gold
04-22-2011, 11:04 AM
Who's sick of this thread being made? And this is the worst time to do it because he's stepped up and produced more consistently than everyone on the team, especially the players you said we should build around. lol.

daschysta
04-22-2011, 11:07 AM
He also got outplayed by Deng. Of course, that may not be a bad thing to say condsidering Deng looked all-world last night.

Deng had a good game, but danny stepped it up in the clutch, hitting big jumper after big jumper and has been the better player than deng over the course of the series, despite getting double and triple teamed while deng has gotten bunny looks off of the help given towards rose.

Danny has been far more impressive than deng over these three games, and if just one other pacers could step up even a bit to give some offensive help than danny would be even better.

yoadknux
04-22-2011, 11:09 AM
I'd absolutely take my chances with either Rose at the free throw line, or an exhausted Deng taking an open three, rather than Rose being allowed an easy lay-up.

But maybe that's just me.
I think he had a pretty tough layup.
He makes it look easy, and I still think sending him to the line gives him a better chance of getting points (maybe an and one, who knows)

DaveP63
04-22-2011, 11:28 AM
The one and only thing that I will fault him for, for this game, is the last shot he took at the end of the game. The one with people draped all over him and the rest of the bulls packed into the lane. If you will look off to the left side you will see MJD camped out on the three point line, all alone, wide open.

jcouts
04-22-2011, 11:29 AM
He didn't lose the game for us by any means, but he's not the long term answer at SF if we ever want to get past the first round.

Justin Tyme
04-22-2011, 11:31 AM
Were you saying this after he hit four straight shots to single-handedly keep us in the game?


I was happy, but at the same time my reaction was it's about time. Granger will never be confused for a player who can take over a game and and be clutch. Granger is what Granger is very 1 dimensional, he's a 20 point scorer, not a takeover the game type player. Never has been never will be.

Blink
04-22-2011, 11:33 AM
He didn't lose the game for us by any means, but he's not the long term answer at SF if we ever want to get past the first round.

Wtf?

PR07
04-22-2011, 11:38 AM
He's not a great one on one scorer, and those are the types of guys that tend to succeed in late game possessions. There's nothing wrong with being a really good #2 scoring option in this league, as there are very few guys that are true #1's. Be happy with what we have, but could we use a #1 guy? Yeah, absolutely.

vapacersfan
04-22-2011, 11:43 AM
He didn't lose the game for us by any means, but he's not the long term answer at SF if we ever want to get past the first round.

HUH?!?!?!


With a legit number 1 Danny will be a huge part of any playoff success we have.

vapacersfan
04-22-2011, 11:44 AM
He's not a great one on one scorer, and those are the types of guys that tend to succeed in late game possessions. There's nothing wrong with being a really good #2 scoring option in this league, as there are very few guys that are true #1's. Be happy with what we have, but could we use a #1 guy? Yeah, absolutely.

True, but who wouldnt?

MagicRat
04-22-2011, 11:46 AM
The one and only thing that I will fault him for, for this game, is the last shot he took at the end of the game. The one with people draped all over him and the rest of the bulls packed into the lane. If you will look off to the left side you will see MJD camped out on the three point line, all alone, wide open.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrZNAETFQJw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

righteouscool
04-22-2011, 11:55 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrZNAETFQJw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

lol, tyler set about as pathetic a pick as i've seen.

daschysta
04-22-2011, 11:58 AM
He didn't lose the game for us by any means, but he's not the long term answer at SF if we ever want to get past the first round.

What is this noise?? You mean long term answer at unquestioned number one? Your right, but he can absolutely be a gigantic part of a successful team in either a pistonish team witha few players around grangers level ont he same team, or as a second option with a top flight star.

Granger has been our best player all playoffs (george has actually been close though and it wuold be him if he showed any sort of offense at all), in which, may I add our team is playing very well, and going down to the wire with the team that had the leagues best record. He's shooting about 50 percent for the series, despite having to face triple and double teams... Our team also isn't even makign the bulls pay for the doubles since everyone else ahs been offensively inept... It isn't like danny has been shooting too much, he's been efficient. He's taken some bad shots, sure, but how can you blame him?!?! He's hitting a higher percentage of those supposed bad shots, while players like hansbrough are bricking open jumpers at an alarming rate... Without granger we'd be hitting about 30 percent of our field goals throughout the series... Granger has been a gamer these playoffs and i'm proud of him. If he's never going to be a part of a winning team then what does that make our starting pf/center rotation, who have shot a combined 11/43 over the last two games and rebounded the ball a combined 22 times?!

Danny has done his job, he's been the clear second best player in the series after rose.

oxxo
04-22-2011, 12:03 PM
I don't get why people keep bringing this up. Almost no one is saying he is the answer. He'd be an awesome #2 scoring option though.

And for what it's worth, I think it's pretty ridiculous how much crap he's been getting lately. He has a good contract, he wants to be here, and he's a good player. People say 'oh he's not a #1' and then talk bad about him because he's not playing like a #1... which makes absolutely no sense.

vapacersfan
04-22-2011, 12:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrZNAETFQJw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Thanks

If anything, I woud have liked to have seen him drive it to the hole there, but considering he was our go to guy, who had been hitting his jumpers for most of the night, we have to live with that shot.

Day-V
04-22-2011, 12:04 PM
Were you saying this after he hit four straight shots to single-handedly keep us in the game?

TBH, I was standing there going "No, no, no-Thank God" for those shots.

NapTonius Monk
04-22-2011, 12:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrZNAETFQJw&feature=youtube_gdata_playerWatching this made me realize the vocal presence of Bull's fans there. I hope we drown them out Saturday. At floor level no less.

Hicks
04-22-2011, 12:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrZNAETFQJw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Those screens were pathetic. Tyler has to improve that.

jcouts
04-22-2011, 12:19 PM
Wtf?

I bring it up because I'm really trying to think of an answer to how many "Robins" on teams currently competing in the playoffs can't defend their position better than Danny OR create a quality shot for themselves or a teammate better than Danny, while already chipping in what he does.

The vast majority of the #2 scoring options on the teams currently in the playoffs, especially those that are expected to get out of the first round, can at least do 1 of those 2 things - in most cases they can do both of those 2 things better than Danny can, on top being able to essentially do what he does as far as scoring methods.

There are even some teams where even the 3rd or 4th scoring option is equal to or better at those 2 things than Danny is.

vnzla81
04-22-2011, 12:21 PM
TBH, I was standing there going "No, no, no-Thank God" for those shots.

Me too :laugh:

ensergio
04-22-2011, 12:35 PM
He didn't lose the game for us by any means, but he's not the long term answer at SF if we ever want to get past the first round.

WTF!!!

I want a little of that thing you're smoking!

TheColdHardTruth
04-22-2011, 12:41 PM
He's not a great one on one scorer, and those are the types of guys that tend to succeed in late game possessions. There's nothing wrong with being a really good #2 scoring option in this league, as there are very few guys that are true #1's. Be happy with what we have, but could we use a #1 guy? Yeah, absolutely.

Unfortunately there's only a handful of players good enough to be "#1 guys," and the only way to get one is through the draft, or already have one so you can attract another through free agency.

Your best best is to lose as much as possible, get a high draft pick, and hope that Bird doesn't fall in love with a European stiff.

jcouts
04-22-2011, 12:59 PM
WTF!!!

I want a little of that thing you're smoking!

So if everyone thinks Granger is the long term solution at SF, and we get this prized create-his-own shot SG...let's think about the final minute of the game against a team like the Bulls -

We have Granger in at SF. We have this prized SG we're all talking about...let's just say it's EJ for fun.

Is Paul on the bench?

If so, who's guarding Rose? It sure ain't Granger or Collison. Is it EJ?

Is Paul going to be a 6th man until Danny retires?

I'm assuming people aren't counting on Paul being a #1, since people are talking about going out and getting this prized SG. I'm not sold that Paul's going to be a clear cut #1 scoring option. To me, he seems more like an ideal #2 option or, as I think the trend will be, a 1a/1b option that teams like the Thunder have with Durant/Westbrook.

Either way, I like him better for that #2 role than Danny.

BlueNGold
04-22-2011, 01:06 PM
Danny would make a great #2. He only gets heat because he's our #1 player right now but he's not in that tier with Rose, Lebron, DWade, Pierce, Garnett, Allen, Dwight, Mello, Amare, Love, etc. I'm just talking the east here. I know we could not acquire Al Horford for Danny. Maybe not Josh Smith. At 20 years old, I woud not trade away Jrue Holiday to get Danny either. The way Deng plays defense I seriously question who the better player is between him and Danny. The same can be said for Iggy. Danny might beat them on offense, but defense is the other side of the coin and their values get close or match his when you consider the whole package.

IOW, he's not a top 10 player in the east which makes it virtually impossible for him to be a Batman and really lead this team to contention. That is the expectation of a #1. Perhaps that's unfair and we shouldn't expect this team as presently constructed to get past the first round. Maybe with some age we go a bit further, but this team is not going to contend until there are more changes...because the talent level is not high enough.

Edit: This is a numbers game. Danny will be on the backside of his career by the time Paul George is fully bloomed. IOW, not the best timing to peak as a team. That's probably a prime reason why Danny needs to be traded at some point...for more youth.

mildlysane
04-22-2011, 01:08 PM
Those screens were pathetic. Tyler has to improve that.
I agree, but would add that our ball handlers are not very good at setting their man up to get picked either.

daschysta
04-22-2011, 01:13 PM
I bring it up because I'm really trying to think of an answer to how many "Robins" on teams currently competing in the playoffs can't defend their position better than Danny OR create a quality shot for themselves or a teammate better than Danny, while already chipping in what he does.

The vast majority of the #2 scoring options on the teams currently in the playoffs, especially those that are expected to get out of the first round, can at least do 1 of those 2 things - in most cases they can do both of those 2 things better than Danny can, on top being able to essentially do what he does as far as scoring methods.

There are even some teams where even the 3rd or 4th scoring option is equal to or better at those 2 things than Danny is.

Danny is holding Luol Deng to 40 percent shooting for the series, danny is also averaging the second mosts assists on the team, and our leading assist guy (collison) is only averaging about 1 more per game. He'd likely have even more if our players could hit the shots that are made for them.

You don't have a point whatsoever, and even if you did you phrased it in a really bad way. You claimed granger isn't the answer at SF if we're ever going to the second round as if he ISNT a top 5is SF in the league, it's the one position where we typically have a better player than the opposing team. The answer is to either develop, or acquire more talent around him.

You must not have liked reggie much... He was our number one option and danny is a better defender and rebounder than reggie and at least as good of a passer (not comparing them overall just in the salient aspects brought up by jcouts).

If you can make an absolute homerun trade by trading danny sure, noone in the league almost is 100 percent untouchable. But the bottom line is

A. Danny is paid like a second option, yet is forced to be a first option, despite being the focus of the bulls defense he's upped his game in the playoffs, and is at his best when he can play off another player. Most players as good as granger are getting payed signifcantly more money, see Johnson, Joe, or Gay, Rudy...

B. Danny is actually a damn good defensive player when he's free to focus on it rather than having to take over offensively to give us a chance, do you not remember when hibbert was playing MIP basketball early in the year? Danny was phenomenal defensively, then hibbert fell off a cliff and danny was forced to be our offense again, Ditto when tyler was tearing it up.

C. Danny is an elite shooter, one of the best in the league, yet he's on a team where noone else is enough of a threat to prevent doubles most nights, he shoots a respectable percentage for someone that plays like he does and attracts the double, get some more credible threats and his efficiency will skyrocket, he'll eat teams if he can gets some uncontested looks at the net.

Lastly it's hard to rag on danny when he and paul george are the only players that have stepped up their game considerably in the playoffs consistantly so far. If Danny is somehow our second best player then i have no doubt that we win at least 50 games and compete for homecourt advantage in the playoffs.

As for other teams second options...

Danny would be far and away the second best player in orlando, especially with howard attracting so much attention in the middle, if Danny were on dwights team today then they would have a good shot at winning the title.

Danny would be the top offensive option in philadelphia. Danny would also be the second option in chicago, and one of atlanta's top options.

EDIT:

Yikes those were some awful screens by tyler. Makes me miss the davis's all the more. For such a tough intense guy Tyler sets screens like my little sister.

Hicks
04-22-2011, 01:28 PM
Granger is the long term solution at SF. He just isn't the longterm solution as our best player.

righteouscool
04-22-2011, 01:43 PM
Edit: This is a numbers game. Danny will be on the backside of his career by the time Paul George is fully bloomed. IOW, not the best timing to peak as a team. That's probably a prime reason why Danny needs to be traded at some point...for more youth.

I don't know about that. Danny plays an old man's game. He doesn't beat people off athletic ability or speed.

I can't stand some of the stupid shots he takes. I think an off season with a good coach will benefit Danny a lot. He should work on his post up game, because I think he could definitely improve there. I almost wish we'd trade Granger to a contender. He gets so much crap from Pacers fans I just don't understand it. He's not a number 1 option, he's not paid like a number 1 option, what do you want him to do?!