PDA

View Full Version : Kravits article about Danny... (Vnzla81 you'll want to skip this) :)



Peck
02-17-2012, 03:21 AM
http://www.indystar.com/article/20120217/SPORTS15/202170320/Forget-message-board-pundits-Granger-s-doing-his-scoring-here

By my unofficial count, Danny Granger has been traded 1,637 times on Indiana Pacers message boards. Traded for Eric Gordon. Traded for a fun-pack of Cheetos. Traded constantly.

Which is why it's probably good that Larry Bird runs the Indiana Pacers, and not Joe From Kokomo or Cheezy Beef.

It's time to stop talking about all the things Granger doesn't do really well and talk, at least for one minute, about the thing he does really well:

Score.

Like he did Thursday night, scoring 32 points in the Pacers' 93-88 victory over the New Jersey Nets at Bankers Life Fieldhouse.

The guy will drive the message-board denizens mad (sometimes Bird and coach Frank Vogel, too), but when the game is on the line, there is nobody else on this team who is better suited to win a game.

"Any time somebody is sort of the face of the franchise that isn't winning, like we hadn't won for a couple of years, they're going to nitpick every little thing he doesn't do,'' Vogel said. "But you've got to appreciate what he does do.''

Here's when some of us knew that the Pacers could not afford to move Granger: last year's playoff series against the Chicago Bulls, when Granger averaged 21.6 points and never scored fewer than 19 against the best defensive team in the league.

The playoffs are a different animal than the regular season. Defenses take away your first option, your second and your third. Enter Granger.

"You can run all the action you want, but a lot of possessions come down to the last few seconds of the shot clock, and you've got to have a guy who can create his own,'' Vogel said. "And we've got a few of those.''

Over time, Paul George has a chance to be one of those guys, but for now, he's still not assertive enough on a consistent basis. On nights like Thursday, he's expending all his energy on the other end of the floor slowing Nets guard Deron Williams.

The Pacers' blessing and curse are the same thing: They don't have a mega-star who can take over in the final moments like a D-Wade or a Kobe or, when he feels like it, LeBron James. Granger is as close to being that player as the Pacers have.

Yet the next time Granger has one of those 6-for-20 games, Noblesville Marty will deal him for a dented rim.

"Nature of the beast,'' Granger said, laughing. "Nature of sports. People are always trying to find something. I understand that.''

Fans have got to be a little bit patient before they move Granger to Cleveland for the Ghost of Paul Mokeski: This is the first time in his career he's been surrounded by teammates who can score. This is a transition.

"This is much easier,'' Granger said. "It's nice. I don't have to go out there and try to score 25. I can rely on other guys and do other things to help us win.''

OK, so Granger is not a superstar. He's a jump stop short of being a star. There are still too many things he doesn't do well. He is a "volume shooter,'' another stupid term that makes me more ornery than dyspeptic referee Joey Crawford.

But with the game on the line, the Pacers hanging on to a tenuous 88-84 lead, Granger took the ball strong to the basket, and while he missed the shot, he broke down New Jersey's defense. Roy Hibbert got the rebound and got fouled on the follow. Ballgame.

In a normal 82-game schedule, there aren't all that many big games. In the condensed 66-game schedule, they're all big, and they're only getting bigger with the newly-revitalized Knicks and the evergreen Boston Celtics coming up behind the Pacers.

The Pacers have to make things happen and they need to do it now, looking at the softest schedule stretch of the season.

Get this: The Pacers' next five games will come against three teams who came into Thursday night with a combined record of 20-64.

"This is a chance for us to rip off a couple of wins in a row,'' Granger said.

If the Pacers had fallen to New Jersey, the panic might have set in, especially for a team that began to see some of the old locker room infighting creeping back.

Asked about his team's five-game losing streak before the game, Vogel said, "Quite honestly, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact we're a big game for teams now. We're not the Indiana Pacers, the .500 or sub-.500 team, another night on the schedule. We're one of the elite teams in the league and they're bringing their best.''

OK, elite is an overstatement at 18-12. But they're pretty good.

So unless Orlando wants to ship Dwight Howard here for Granger, the Pacers would be best to hold on tightly and let this team grow together.

Until Granger's next 6-for-20 game.

Then all bets are off.

The Indianapolis Star. Call him at

(317) 444-6643 or email bob.kravitz@indystar.com. You can follow Bob on Twitter at @bkravitz.

Well at least Bob admits he reads the Pacers message boards. :wave: Hi Bob.

Pacers4Life
02-17-2012, 03:26 AM
I'm still in love with this team/season. So damn exciting, still, to be 18-12. I don't like how we've gotten here but that's more a testament to what this team makes me believe now. Our defense has been lost,its possible to find it tho. I think we can. Great game by Danny tonight. You could call it clutch i think

Pacers4Life
02-17-2012, 03:32 AM
Loved the shout out to Kokomo Joe as well. Man I love that guy, crazy SOB though.

Day-V
02-17-2012, 03:36 AM
Hicks, Peck, somebody.... can you please change my name to Cheezy Beef?



(Please don't.)

King Tuts Tomb
02-17-2012, 03:36 AM
People on Pacers message boards were the only ones who cared about this team for the last three years. Most people in Indy don't want to trade Danny Granger because they don't know who Danny Granger is.

crunk-juice
02-17-2012, 03:52 AM
why seven is the frightened color altering.

croz24
02-17-2012, 04:38 AM
Stopped after I read "It's time to stop talking about all the things Granger doesn't do really well and talk, at least for one minute, about the thing he does really well: Score."

Kravitz is just talking out of his *** like he always does. Danny played well against New Jersey, but I don't recall reading any articles like this at any other point of the year with Danny STILL taking too many shots outside the flow of offense, shooting sub 40% from the field, and continuing his career long downward trend in shooting accuracy. No, Danny does not score "very well". If anything, Kravitz should have used his time complimenting Granger on his increased effort this year. But certainly not on a trait that translates to a career low fg% and one of the worst fg%s in the league.

And "one of those 6 for 20 games". Wonder if Kravitz realizes that a 6/20 game is pretty close to what Danny averages on the season and much more common than his 10/20 tonight. Keep speaking out of your *** Kravie, like you do with just about every one of your articles...

presto123
02-17-2012, 04:44 AM
I think lately people on message boards are wanting to run Kravitz out of town far more than Danny.:laugh:

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 06:14 AM
One good game and we crown him as the savior? :laugh: and yes Kravitz 6 and 20 is more likely to happen.

People here think I hate Danny, I don't, I just hate the way people overrated the crap out him, he is a good player in the mold of Deng, Iguadola, etc but he is best served as the 3rd best player in a championship team.

QuickRelease
02-17-2012, 06:48 AM
especially for a team that began to see some of the old locker room infighting creeping back.Hmmm...:(

Asher99
02-17-2012, 06:53 AM
I view Danny as a Pau Gasol level star. He can be a team best player and make then a regular season success but chances are they aren't going past the first round. But if you stick him with a better player and he can be the second option a team can do some major damage.

The bad thing for us we can't convince a bigger star to come here or didn't tank enough to get better shot in the Draft Lottery or never seem to slide up in the mysterious drawing or gotten lucky enough since Danny to draft a star player like a Rondo in 06 to build around the core of two cost controlled young stars.

Asher99
02-17-2012, 07:03 AM
Hmmm...:(

I wish we really knew what was going on in the locker room. Peck has some sources and teased at it last game and now another hint at it in Bob's story only has me more intrigued. Winning is a chemistry Band-Aid but something is obviously is going on in there. Not sure this easy run of game coming up is going to do anything more than cover up the issue until the next rough patch hits or even worse when adversity hits in the playoffs.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 07:15 AM
Hmmm...:(

http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/2012/02/17/it-was-time-to-have-a-talk/



It was time to have a talk

12:28 AM, Feb. 17, 2012 | Written by Mike Wells | 1Comments
Team chemistry is one of the most common things I get asked about by fans when it comes to talking about the Pacers.

That’s because the Pacers dealt with their fair share of chemistry problems in the past, including last season. Those chemistry problems often led to a divided locker room.

Not season.

This is a close group of players.

It helps that there’s a solid mix of veterans (especially David West) to go with the young players.

Do the players agree on everything?

Heck no. It would be too easy if that was the case.

Will they have problems again at some point this season?

Likely so.

The players talked amongst themselves to try resolve their issues during their five-game losing streak.

“We had a few circumstances where we were kind of snapping at each other out of timeouts and arguing,” Danny Granger said. “We got together and said if we want to compete then we had to play together and (have) constructive criticism and stop signaling out everybody else when you should probably be looking in the mirror.

“That was our main problem. So once everyone evaluated themselves and said we have to change something individually before we can change it collectively (or) we won’t win. We did that and we won.”

It’s good that the players were able to talk about things without having the coaching staff get involved and take on a babysitting role.

The Pacers hope their victory Thursday will be the start of them getting back on track again. Their next five games – Charlotte (twice), New Orleans (twice) and Golden State – are against teams with a losing record.

Justin Tyme
02-17-2012, 08:04 AM
Hmmm...:(

So you noticed that comment too. I wonder if he really knows anything or is just running with Peck's post?

Anthem
02-17-2012, 08:08 AM
One good game and we crown him as the savior?
:laugh: One good game?

Reginald
02-17-2012, 08:17 AM
This was a great, not good, article about Granger. Way to go, Kravvy! If we're going to be critical of players, be critical of the ones who deserve it:

Collison -- Streaky. A defensive liability. AJ Price played pretty much the entire 4th quarter vs. New Jersey because we couldn't risk DC being on the floor. He's had two games in which he's posted zero assists. Has played his way this season into well-deserved trade bait.

Hansbrough -- By any reasonable measurement, Psycho T has regressed since last season. "Scrappy" can only get you so far in this league. Misses more shots than he makes, flails and flops down the lane like a mean drunk, and the moment he puts the ball on the floor everyone in the arena just waits for the turnover.

Jones -- From his Duke pedigree to his cheap fouls, I hate almost everything about him.

Hibbert -- I realize this violates some unspoken commandment that "Thou shalt not speak ill of 55," but let's be honest for once. Have you ever seen a big man with that size and skillset who has no finishing move at the rim? If Roy is going up with a shot under the basket and is matched up against a defender with any physicality, that's a missed shot more than half the time. Yes, Roy has soft hands, a nice floater, and a sweet hook shot (when he's in rhythm), but a guy that big and that good needs to be dunking balls through defenders' faces. And what is up with his conditioning? Vogel had to pull him for most of the 4th vs. NJ because he looked like he was about to collapse from exhaustion. As Michael Grady says, "Roy isn't grabbing his knees during timeouts, he's grabbing his ankles."

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 08:24 AM
:laugh: One good game?

One good game in a long time? yes, I like to take into consideration the whole package, people love to look the other way when somebody has a good scoring game and they forget about their defense, I don't, it's true that Danny has been scoring better lately but his defense has been horrible, yesterday he looked amazing on D because we played the Nets.

Reginald
02-17-2012, 08:24 AM
One good game and we crown him as the savior?

Which part of "[in] last year's playoffs against the Chicago Bulls Granger averaged 21.6 points and never scored fewer than 19 against the best defensive team in the league" did you not understand?

Kravitz nailed this one. Internet fanboys are generally clueless when it comes to Granger. If/when Danny gets traded, that team you saw versus Miami and Cleveland is the Pacers team we'll get, and the Pacers team we'll deserve.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 08:31 AM
Which part of "[in] last year's playoffs against the Chicago Bulls Granger averaged 21.6 points and never scored fewer than 19 against the best defensive team in the league" did you not understand?

Kravitz nailed this one. Internet fanboys are generally clueless when it comes to Granger. If/when Danny gets traded, that team you saw versus Miami and Cleveland is the Pacers team we'll get, and the Pacers team we'll deserve.

Yes they are.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 08:48 AM
But with the game on the line, the Pacers hanging on to a tenuous 88-84 lead, Granger took the ball strong to the basket, and while he missed the shot, he broke down New Jersey's defense. Roy Hibbert got the rebound and got fouled on the follow. Ballgame.


I also got a huge laugh out of this part of the article, OK so with the game on the line he missed the shot and we are giving him credit for it? OK :laugh:

MTM
02-17-2012, 08:59 AM
If it weren't for this message board there would be very little worthwhile written about the team by anyone who watches them, and most (if not all) of you guys/gals don't even get paid to do it. Kravitz might be trying to be funny here, but the insights on this forum surpass anything from Kravitz or Wells.

Mr. Boyle is an exception, but his words are not in print in the City's rag.

Slick Pinkham
02-17-2012, 09:01 AM
vnzla81, when you break down the defense and get into the lane, it draws defenders and it allows Roy to get the rebound. So, yes, it is a good play, even if it missed.

If he yo-yo'd the basketball and shot a fadeaway 3 pointer off his heels, then that would likely be a miss that didn't help the team.

McKeyFan
02-17-2012, 09:05 AM
I also got a huge laugh out of this part of the article, OK so with the game on the line he missed the shot and we are giving him credit for it? OK :laugh:
I thought that was funny, too.

However, Danny really did hit a very big shot a couple possession before that right around the free throw line. Biggest shot of the night for our win, imo.

Trader Joe
02-17-2012, 09:13 AM
http://www.indystar.com/article/20120217/SPORTS15/202170320/Forget-message-board-pundits-Granger-s-doing-his-scoring-here


If the Pacers had fallen to New Jersey, the panic might have set in, especially for a team that began to see some of the old locker room infighting creeping back.




Ok...ok, I know some are going to jump down my neck, but you have this quote from Bob today and last night Lance only played 4 minutes after getting heavy doses during the losing streak...coincidence or no?

Pacerized
02-17-2012, 09:13 AM
Kravits did get this one right. I've never wanted to see Granger go anywhere. He's seen us through some tough times and never been negative about it. If possible it would be great if he's here to see the good times ahead. Right now we still don't have any player who's ready to step into Grangers shoes. Maybe PG will, and maybe he'll develop into Derrick McKey. Hibbert still isn't there and I don't ever see him as a #1 scoring option. We'll either add to this core at the trade deadline if a bargain is available, or Bird will be very aggressive this summer since it's his last shot to spend money. Either way Granger isn't going anywhere unless it's for a superstar.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 09:15 AM
I thought that was funny, too.

However, Danny really did hit a very big shot a couple possession before that right around the free throw line. Biggest shot of the night for our win, imo.

No doubt, as I posted on the postgame thread, "we don't win the game without Danny", but that doesn't mean that I am going to forget about his OK season.

Trader Joe
02-17-2012, 09:15 AM
One good game and we crown him as the savior? :laugh: and yes Kravitz 6 and 20 is more likely to happen.

People here think I hate Danny, I don't, I just hate the way people overrated the crap out him, he is a good player in the mold of Deng, Iguadola, etc but he is best served as the 3rd best player in a championship team.

How do you explain that Iggy and Danny are arguable the two best players on two teams battling for seeding in the upper half of the East then?

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 09:16 AM
Ok...ok, I know some are going to jump down my neck, but you have this quote from Bob today and last night Lance only played 4 minutes after getting heavy doses during the losing streak...coincidence or no?

NO.

Trader Joe
02-17-2012, 09:18 AM
NO.

So you're saying that Lance is one of the problems? Just asking FYI, I said "coincidence or no?" to me the coincidence answer means there is no relation between Lance and Kravitz's comments.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 09:18 AM
How do you explain that Iggy and Danny are arguable the two best players on two teams battling for seeding in the upper half of the East then?

Battling right now, talk to me at the end of the season.

Trader Joe
02-17-2012, 09:19 AM
Battling right now, talk to me at the end of the season.

You think both the Sixers and the Pacers will fall completely out of the race then?

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 09:26 AM
You think both the Sixers and the Pacers will fall completely out of the race then?

I think they are going to be in the middle not the top, probably 7,6 or 5, top 3 or 4 is a dream for us, I think is going to end up with Chicago1, Miami2, Orlando3, Atlanta4 with the sixers having a chance to take Atlanta's place and then everybody else.

Since86
02-17-2012, 09:31 AM
One good game in a long time? yes, I like to take into consideration the whole package, people love to look the other way when somebody has a good scoring game and they forget about their defense, I don't, it's true that Danny has been scoring better lately but his defense has been horrible, yesterday he looked amazing on D because we played the Nets.

So I guess last Saturday was a long time ago? Good to know that 5 days inbetween good games is such a hard stretch of bad play for you to endure.

Last Sat., against Denver, Danny had 26 on 10-18 shooting.

Oh, and Danny only played 12minutes in between that performance against Denver and last night.

But yeah, good point. :thumbsup:

King Tuts Tomb
02-17-2012, 09:33 AM
If it weren't for this message board there would be very little worthwhile written about the team by anyone who watches them, and most (if not all) of you guys/gals don't even get paid to do it. Kravitz might be trying to be funny here, but the insights on this forum surpass anything from Kravitz or Wells.

Mr. Boyle is an exception, but his words are not in print in the City's rag.

Absolutely. I've always been a Pacers fan but I didn't become a true die-hard, 82 game watcher until I joined PD. The junk the Indy Star prints compared to a lot of the analysis you find on this board isn't even close. It's almost embarrassing seeing Kravitz dog message board posters when they're creating content that's light years ahead of what he's doing.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 09:35 AM
So I guess last Saturday was a long time ago? Good to know that 5 days inbetween good games is such a hard stretch of bad play for you to endure.

Last Sat., against Denver, Danny had 26 on 10-18 shooting.

Oh, and Danny only played 12minutes in between that performance against Denver and last night.

But yeah, good point. :thumbsup:

Who won that game again? a ok good try :thumbsup:

Since86
02-17-2012, 09:39 AM
I thought the topic was Danny's performance. I guess players can't play well in losses.

LA_Confidential
02-17-2012, 09:45 AM
Trading Danny has never been an interest of mine. Even when he was at the peak of his "value" I had no interest in trading him. Think about it, subtract him from those teams, who did we have? Dunleavy? TJ? Rasho? Jack?. Who did we have on those teams who we were really gonna depend on? Nobody!

Continue to add to what Danny brings and we'll continue to get better.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 09:46 AM
I thought the topic was Danny's performance. I guess players can't play well in losses.

If by "playing well" you mean playing horrible D and putting up good offensive numbers then you are 100% right.

Since86
02-17-2012, 09:54 AM
So just losing means that Danny played horrible defense, or are you actually going to bring some substance to the discussion?

Believe it or not, players can play well on both sides of the ball and their team still lose. Crazy, I know.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 10:03 AM
So just losing means that Danny played horrible defense, or are you actually going to bring some substance to the discussion?

Believe it or not, players can play well on both sides of the ball and their team still lose. Crazy, I know.

Losing doesn't mean that just Danny played horrible D, the team as a whole has been playing horrible D including Danny.

CJ Jones
02-17-2012, 10:08 AM
This was a great, not good, article about Granger. Way to go, Kravvy! If we're going to be critical of players, be critical of the ones who deserve it:

Collison -- Streaky. A defensive liability. AJ Price played pretty much the entire 4th quarter vs. New Jersey because we couldn't risk DC being on the floor. He's had two games in which he's posted zero assists. Has played his way this season into well-deserved trade bait.

Hansbrough -- By any reasonable measurement, Psycho T has regressed since last season. "Scrappy" can only get you so far in this league. Misses more shots than he makes, flails and flops down the lane like a mean drunk, and the moment he puts the ball on the floor everyone in the arena just waits for the turnover.

Jones -- From his Duke pedigree to his cheap fouls, I hate almost everything about him.

Hibbert -- I realize this violates some unspoken commandment that "Thou shalt not speak ill of 55," but let's be honest for once. Have you ever seen a big man with that size and skillset who has no finishing move at the rim? If Roy is going up with a shot under the basket and is matched up against a defender with any physicality, that's a missed shot more than half the time. Yes, Roy has soft hands, a nice floater, and a sweet hook shot (when he's in rhythm), but a guy that big and that good needs to be dunking balls through defenders' faces. And what is up with his conditioning? Vogel had to pull him for most of the 4th vs. NJ because he looked like he was about to collapse from exhaustion. As Michael Grady says, "Roy isn't grabbing his knees during timeouts, he's grabbing his ankles."

So these players deserve criticism but Danny Granger doesn't... that makes sense.


I also got a huge laugh out of this part of the article, OK so with the game on the line he missed the shot and we are giving him credit for it? OK :laugh:

Yeah I wouldn't call a wild shot breaking down a defense or creating offense.

When Vogel made the comment about Danny being able to create his own offense I was taken aback. That's his main weakness IMO. The ISO at the end of the half is what you usually get with Danny. He was doubled by Lance's man and he didn't even look to pass it because he can't dribble with his head up.


If it weren't for this message board there would be very little worthwhile written about the team by anyone who watches them, and most (if not all) of you guys/gals don't even get paid to do it. Kravitz might be trying to be funny here, but the insights on this forum surpass anything from Kravitz or Wells.

Mr. Boyle is an exception, but his words are not in print in the City's rag.

Good Post. I'd trust nearly everybody's opinion here about all things Pacers related before I would Kravy's. Even Cheezy Beefs.


So I guess last Saturday was a long time ago? Good to know that 5 days inbetween good games is such a hard stretch of bad play for you to endure.

Last Sat., against Denver, Danny had 26 on 10-18 shooting.

Oh, and Danny only played 12minutes in between that performance against Denver and last night.

But yeah, good point. :thumbsup:

That's a bad example of a "good" game for Danny... or at least it should be.

Since86
02-17-2012, 10:11 AM
So no, you're not going to bring anything of substance to back up your position. :laugh: Okay, time to move on.

CJ Jones
02-17-2012, 10:24 AM
So no, you're not going to bring anything of substance to back up your position. :laugh: Okay, time to move on.

Substance? How about Danny let an inferior player (can't even think of his name) getting paid a fraction of what he is have just as much of an impact on the game as he did.

I expect our highest paid player to out play one of their lowest paid.

Since86
02-17-2012, 10:29 AM
Vnzla always goes back to defense, while he continually harps about how Monta Ellis is the answer. Sorry, but when defense is the hinge point of your argument and you're openly calling for a player that can't even spell the word "defense" let alone play any, your point is moot.


And besides if you think 10-18 isn't a good example of a good game by any player, then there's no point in arguing with you either. If shooting 55% isn't good enough, then nothing will be, so there's no point in wasting the effort.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 10:32 AM
Substance? How about Danny let an inferior player (can't even think of his name) getting paid a fraction of what he is have just as much of an impact on the game as he did.

I expect our highest paid player to out play one of their lowest paid.

Brewer, Morrow, Jones, the other Brewer in Chicago, etc, etc.

Justin Tyme
02-17-2012, 10:37 AM
]
end up with Chicago1, Bulls2, Orlando3, Atlanta4 with the sixers having a chance to take Atlanta's place and then everybody else.


So Chicago AND the Bulls are going to be 1 & 2. hmmm?

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 10:38 AM
Vnzla always goes back to defense, while he continually harps about how Monta Ellis is the answer. Sorry, but when defense is the hinge point of your argument and you're openly calling for a player that can't even spell the word "defense" let alone play any, your point is moot.


And besides if you think 10-18 isn't a good example of a good game by any player, then there's no point in arguing with you either. If shooting 55% isn't good enough, then nothing will be, so there's no point in wasting the effort.

According to your argument AJ, Tyler, Lou and DJ had a great game againts Miami :unimpress

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 10:39 AM
So Chicago AND the Bulls are going to be 1 & 2. hmmm?

:laugh: my bad. Chicago and then Miami.

Pacer Fan
02-17-2012, 11:15 AM
I have only wanted to trade Danny to make this team better for the future and this was last years season trade deadline, draft, and FA. At one point, Danny was our only asset worth enough to possibly get multiple young players in for a swift rebuild. At this point it wouldn't make much sense to trade him with West and Hill being here. I haven't seen very many wanting to trade him this year because of the direction the Pacers front office has went. We as fans didn't know the direction the FO was going to go from last year to this year. You either rebuild and do a youth movement or you build around what you have. This doesn't mean I want to ship Danny out cause I don't like him or because he had a bad game or 2. I have previously stated on here that he is a top 5 SF in the league and I still believe he is. This isn't hating on him, this is seeing value in him. Huge difference. The reason why I wanted to state this is I think quite of few fans on here prolly has the same reasoning of trading him as I have in the past.

Like, right now, with the direction the Pacers are going, I think Hibbert is our main asset to trade. For several reasons and not for the lack of loving the guy. With Kaman available and Roy being easy to move to any team with his contract right now and teams will be able to retain him from his rookie contract this summer. The trigger has to be pulled if the right deal was there to make this team a real possible contender. Therefore, I will be talking Hibbert trades up to the deadline. Collison, Hans, and the other bench guys are not going to get you to far in trades, unless Larry gets his magical dust out.

CJ Jones
02-17-2012, 11:32 AM
Vnzla always goes back to defense, while he continually harps about how Monta Ellis is the answer. Sorry, but when defense is the hinge point of your argument and you're openly calling for a player that can't even spell the word "defense" let alone play any, your point is moot.


And besides if you think 10-18 isn't a good example of a good game by any player, then there's no point in arguing with you either. If shooting 55% isn't good enough, then nothing will be, so there's no point in wasting the effort.

I wouldn't say he had a bad game. I wouldn't necessarily call it a good game either. Remember we did lose that game, and Danny's poor defense played a big part in that.

Since86
02-17-2012, 11:35 AM
According to your argument AJ, Tyler, Lou and DJ had a great game againts Miami :unimpress

:laugh: you're hopeless.

Trader Joe
02-17-2012, 11:36 AM
If by "playing well" you mean playing horrible D and putting up good offensive numbers then you are 100% right.

Hold on, are you talking about Danny Granger or Monta Ellis?

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 11:49 AM
Hold on, are you talking about Danny Granger or Monta Ellis?

Hey at least I can admit that Monta is not a great defender, I'm unlike some people here that love to look the other way regarding Danny and other players.

Since86
02-17-2012, 11:57 AM
You also thought Danny was playing bad defense when he was putting up amazing defensive numbers. And then after I had already cited those numbers you just tried saying that people were basing their opinions off of blocks and steals.

Remember that conversation? I do, and I'll take the time to look it up if you'd like.


The point is that Danny was playing excellent defense, and you were still *****ing. The common theme? You *****ing.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 12:12 PM
You also thought Danny was playing bad defense when he was putting up amazing defensive numbers. And then after I had already cited those numbers you just tried saying that people were basing their opinions off of blocks and steals.

Remember that conversation? I do, and I'll take the time to look it up if you'd like.


The point is that Danny was playing excellent defense, and you were still *****ing. The common theme? You *****ing.

Was Danny and the team playing better D or they were playing teams that were not firing in all the cylinders? Remember when I kept saying to wait few more games before crowning him DPOY? To me Danny has been playing the same D all year long, the only difference is that we finally got to play some real teams.

Trader Joe
02-17-2012, 12:29 PM
Hey at least I can admit that Monta is not a great defender, I'm unlike some people here that love to look the other way regarding Danny and other players.

Maybe, but it doesn't begin to explain your fascination with wanting to swap one for the other.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 12:30 PM
Maybe, but it doesn't begin to explain your fascination with wanting to swap one for the other.

Maybe if you don't block me every time you feel sensitive you would know about it ;)

Dgreenwell3
02-17-2012, 12:33 PM
Was Danny and the team playing better D or they were playing teams that were not firing in all the cylinders? Remember when I kept saying to wait few more games before crowning him DPOY? To me Danny has been playing the same D all year long, the only difference is that we finally got to play some real teams.
You are one of those people aren't you?
People, just because a player doesn't make defensive team or DPOY doesn't make him a defensive liability. I would take Danny over all but a select few defensive wings in the NBA there are only a few I wouldn't:
Deng (That's damn close though)
Lebron
Durant
Iggy
Danny is a top tier Wing. Not a superstar but one of the best in the league no doubt. Defensively he is better or as good as: Melo, Pierce, Hill...

CJ Jones
02-17-2012, 12:33 PM
You're not blind or crazy Vnzla81. My brother and his friends make you look like a Danny Fanboy. I respect their opinions because they all played organized ball from middle school through college. You're in the minority here, but around the country I think you'll find quite a few people who agree with you that Danny's a good player, but a player with a lot of holes in his game.

People can't seem to understand that we actually like Danny and think we can win with him, but we're gonna need Paul to learn to dribble and become a super star or we're gonna need to get a star PG.

Trader Joe
02-17-2012, 12:34 PM
Maybe if you don't block me every time you feel sensitive you would know about it ;)

Is it because I feel sensitive or is it because I get tired of reading the same thing over and over?

I'm just saying to continually champion to trade Granger while he is playing well offensively for a guy like Monta who is just as bad if not worse defensively AND smaller doesn't make much sense to me.

Trader Joe
02-17-2012, 12:35 PM
You're not blind or crazy Vnzla81. My brother and his friends make you look like a Danny Fanboy. I respect their opinions because they all played organized ball from middle school through college. You're in the minority here, but around the country I think you'll find quite a few people who agree with you that Danny's a good player, but a player with a lot of holes in his game.

People can't seem to understand that we actually like Danny and think we can win with him, but we're gonna need Paul to learn to dribble and become a super star or we're gonna need to get a star PG.

I don't think anybody is misunderstanding that. Obviously Danny has a whole lot of holes in his game, what hurts Vnzla's argument against Danny is when he is constantly trying to swap him straight up for guys who have just as many holes if not more.

Justin Tyme
02-17-2012, 12:57 PM
I'm going to muddy the waters alittle with this post. I asked a question yesterday. I asked what season Granger was an Allstar. Since I got no response, I looked up Granger's career stats. It looks like his best year at 25 ppg was the 08-09 season, so I'm guessing that was his Allstar season. What I then noticed was every year since his ppg has dropped to 18 ppg this season. Granger's best season FG% was his rookie year at 46%. Since his Allstar season, his FG% has declined as well to 39% this season. You can make whatever you want out of these stats. Something or nothing.

The reason I wanted to know was b/c it seems Hibbert's game has declined since it was announced he was going to be an Allstar, JMO. I wanted to see if there was some correlation to being an Allstar, and how they played afterwards. I would hope there isn't a let down in a Pacers players game after being an Allstar. It probably means nothing, but I was just interested.

Peck
02-17-2012, 01:03 PM
You're not blind or crazy Vnzla81. My brother and his friends make you look like a Danny Fanboy. I respect their opinions because they all played organized ball from middle school through college. You're in the minority here, but around the country I think you'll find quite a few people who agree with you that Danny's a good player, but a player with a lot of holes in his game.

People can't seem to understand that we actually like Danny and think we can win with him, but we're gonna need Paul to learn to dribble and become a super star or we're gonna need to get a star PG.

You see I don't think anyone is in the minority with this opinion. I'm one of Danny's biggest defenders here and I will be the first to tell you that he has a lot of holes in his game.

I will tell you he is not an elite player. There are times he plays like an elite player and there are times he plays like a 10th man but more often than not he plays on the upper side of a really good player.

Vnzla & I both see the same thing we just come at it from different points of view. He sees everybody jumping on hand grenades to protect Danny from criticism & I see everybody rushing to throw hand grenades for unjust criticism.

If my position has not been clear before let me make it so now.

Danny Granger is NOT in the caliber of Durrant, Rose, James, Bryant, etc.

Danny Granger is in the caliber of Iggy, Johnson, Deng, Gay, etc.

At any point in time you could take the latter mentioned 4 players & add Danny and make an argument that at any given time one of them is better than the other but none of them is head and shoulders above the other.

Danny is the best player on our team, a lot of people don't think he's good enough (which I'm about to address in my next post) so therefor every time he has a 6-20 game he is scrutinzed (which he deserves to be) but when he has a game like last night or like his game vs. the Wolves it is seen as an aberation.

Peck
02-17-2012, 01:10 PM
One good game and we crown him as the savior? :laugh: and yes Kravitz 6 and 20 is more likely to happen.

People here think I hate Danny, I don't, I just hate the way people overrated the crap out him, he is a good player in the mold of Deng, Iguadola, etc but he is best served as the 3rd best player in a championship team.

This part of the argument is the one I have the most trouble with. Not that I disagree with the thought but the fact that people (not just you) make this statement as though this is Danny Grangers fault.

He is our best player, why is it his fault that the Pacers have never been able to either trade for or draft a player that is better than him?

In a couple of years I believe that George will surpass him and because of his perimeter defense I think he might be able to be better than Danny ever was (although I don't beleive he will score what Danny did during his 26ppg season but even I will admit that was inflated due to Satan's offense).

I will always understand when someone questions his defensive intensity during a game, I will understand when they say something about shot selection, I will understand when they say he is not a good ball handler or a below average passer.

But I will never understand the argument that it is somehow Danny Grangers fault that he is the best player on a team.

Dr. Hibbert
02-17-2012, 01:13 PM
Kravitz misses the point. Yes, Granger is clutch. One of the most clutch players in this league. Yes, he's a good player.

But his fault is not that he doesn't score a million points every night. His fault is that he's too lazy, too often, on defense, and takes dumb shots outside of crunch time.

Look, I like Granger. Really. Contrary to my gripes, he's the perfect team player, he's clutch, he wins, he gets this team. But Kravitz acts like the only reason people get upset is because he's not Kobe. No. The reason people get upset is because he's shown he can be one of the top defenders at his position in the entire NBA, and then he only sporadically plays up to that level, when theoretically having this added talent around him should allow him to concentrate MORE on defense.

graphic-er
02-17-2012, 01:18 PM
Kravitz misses the point. Yes, Granger is clutch. One of the most clutch players in this league. Yes, he's a good player.

But his fault is not that he doesn't score a million points every night. His fault is that he's too lazy, too often, on defense, and takes dumb shots outside of crunch time.

Look, I like Granger. Really. Contrary to my gripes, he's the perfect team player, he's clutch, he wins, he gets this team. But Kravitz acts like the only reason people get upset is because he's not Kobe. No. The reason people get upset is because he's shown he can be one of the top defenders at his position in the entire NBA, and then he only sporadically plays up to that level, when theoretically having this added talent around him should allow him to concentrate MORE on defense.

In other words your mad that he aint Lebron James. Cause thats what you are asking for.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 01:19 PM
Is it because I feel sensitive or is it because I get tired of reading the same thing over and over?

I'm just saying to continually champion to trade Granger while he is playing well offensively for a guy like Monta who is just as bad if not worse defensively AND smaller doesn't make much sense to me.

Danny hasn't been playing well offensively this year.

People here sometimes are too sensitive to see the two sides of the deal, I explained this to Peck the other time, some people say that I think that Danny is crap because I want to trade him straight up for a guy who I think is better at everything but shooting threes, why would I think that GS would take that deal if I think that Danny has no value? I don't get it.

Like I said before to me Monta is an step below guys like Rose and Westbrook, if you look at his numbers and production he is right there with them, right now he is rated as the 3rd best SG in the league after Dwade and Kobe.

It could be perfect if we could send a bag of cheetos to GS for Monta but I know that's not going to happen, we have to send some value to get some value back and to me the only person that has that big of a value and makes sense for GS is Danny, I don't think PG or anybody else gets a deal done with GS(not trading Roy), they already have a rookie who they think is going to be good. Again is there is a way to get Monta without having to move Danny,PG or Hibbert I'm all for it.

Brad8888
02-17-2012, 01:23 PM
This was a great, not good, article about Granger. Way to go, Kravvy! If we're going to be critical of players, be critical of the ones who deserve it:

Collison -- Streaky. A defensive liability. AJ Price played pretty much the entire 4th quarter vs. New Jersey because we couldn't risk DC being on the floor. He's had two games in which he's posted zero assists. Has played his way this season into well-deserved trade bait.

Hansbrough -- By any reasonable measurement, Psycho T has regressed since last season. "Scrappy" can only get you so far in this league. Misses more shots than he makes, flails and flops down the lane like a mean drunk, and the moment he puts the ball on the floor everyone in the arena just waits for the turnover.

Jones -- From his Duke pedigree to his cheap fouls, I hate almost everything about him.

Hibbert -- I realize this violates some unspoken commandment that "Thou shalt not speak ill of 55," but let's be honest for once. Have you ever seen a big man with that size and skillset who has no finishing move at the rim? If Roy is going up with a shot under the basket and is matched up against a defender with any physicality, that's a missed shot more than half the time. Yes, Roy has soft hands, a nice floater, and a sweet hook shot (when he's in rhythm), but a guy that big and that good needs to be dunking balls through defenders' faces. And what is up with his conditioning? Vogel had to pull him for most of the 4th vs. NJ because he looked like he was about to collapse from exhaustion. As Michael Grady says, "Roy isn't grabbing his knees during timeouts, he's grabbing his ankles."

You had me until the Hibbert section.

1. There was this skinny dude named Ferdinand (but preferred to go by his middle name, Lewis, Lew for short) that went to school out west someplace who ended up hanging around the league for 20 or so years who tended to shoot hook shots instead of dunking. He ended up setting a few records, including being the all time leading scorer in the league without dunking too many balls through defenders faces.

2. Roy did extensive conditioning and bulking up work which has been well publicized. Unfortunately, muscle tissue consumes oxygen at a high rate, which probably becomes difficult for Roy to maintain as an asthma sufferer.

Sookie
02-17-2012, 01:29 PM
Danny is the best player on our team, a lot of people don't think he's good enough (which I'm about to address in my next post) so therefor every time he has a 6-20 game he is scrutinzed (which he deserves to be) but when he has a game like last night or like his game vs. the Wolves it is seen as an aberation.

People just aren't seeing the long term though.

In a few years, I think PG will be the best player on our team. Danny will be one heck of a "second best" player.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 01:38 PM
This part of the argument is the one I have the most trouble with. Not that I disagree with the thought but the fact that people (not just you) make this statement as though this is Danny Grangers fault.

He is our best player, why is it his fault that the Pacers have never been able to either trade for or draft a player that is better than him?

In a couple of years I believe that George will surpass him and because of his perimeter defense I think he might be able to be better than Danny ever was (although I don't beleive he will score what Danny did during his 26ppg season but even I will admit that was inflated due to Satan's offense).

I will always understand when someone questions his defensive intensity during a game, I will understand when they say something about shot selection, I will understand when they say he is not a good ball handler or a below average passer.

But I will never understand the argument that it is somehow Danny Grangers fault that he is the best player on a team.

The been the "3rd best player on a championship team" should not offend anybody, I just made that comment because sometimes I get the feeling that some people think we have the "next coming" in our hands, you know like somebody thinking that we have the next Reggie or something like that :-p

Dr. Hibbert
02-17-2012, 01:56 PM
In other words your mad that he aint Lebron James. Cause thats what you are asking for.

And the award for Overreaction of the Year goes to...

Seriously no. I'm mad Danny doesn't give a better effort on defense. That's it. No one is saying he has to average 18 PPG and play amazing defense on top of it. We're saying he can play amazing defense, he's shown he can play amazing defense, and he needs to concentrate on playing amazing defense, because he doesn't have to spend it all on the other end of the court.

Basically Danny is the anti-Paul George from Vogel's quote in that article. Vogel says Paul spends it all on defense. Danny spends it all on offense. Danny just needs to be more balanced.

Since86
02-17-2012, 02:27 PM
Was Danny and the team playing better D or they were playing teams that were not firing in all the cylinders? Remember when I kept saying to wait few more games before crowning him DPOY? To me Danny has been playing the same D all year long, the only difference is that we finally got to play some real teams.

The discussion took place about 10-15 games into the season. So now you're position is that Danny really wasn't playing that good of defense, just 10-15 teams full of players who Danny guarded all had off nights for those numbers to arise?

:laugh:

Like I said, no substance. You throw crap out just to see if it sticks to the wall.

BRushWithDeath
02-17-2012, 02:39 PM
In other words your mad that he aint Lebron James. Cause thats what you are asking for.

You can repeat your line about how "the biggest problem with Danny Granger is that he isn't Lebron James" as many times as you want, which has been plenty already, but it's just as silly and inaccurate now as it was the first time.

BobbyMac
02-17-2012, 02:40 PM
Hmmm...:(

I think that little bobby just can't write a column without getting in a cheap shot. I'll need to see some better confirmation before I will believe it. Wish we had reporting in Indianapolis that I could believe.

BRushWithDeath
02-17-2012, 02:44 PM
I think that little bobby just can't write a column without getting in a cheap shot. I'll need to see some better confirmation before I will believe it. Wish we had reporting in Indianapolis that I could believe.

Those wild and crazy Indianapolis Star reporters. Always fabricating stories without any truth to them.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 02:46 PM
The discussion took place about 10-15 games into the season. So now you're position is that Danny really wasn't playing that good of defense, just 10-15 teams full of players who Danny guarded all had off nights for those numbers to arise?

:laugh:

Like I said, no substance. You throw crap out just to see if it sticks to the wall.

You are right Corey Brewer burning his a$$ didn't happen, Talking about not having an argument here, hey it's cool you were wrong and I was right no need to get all mad.

Since86
02-17-2012, 02:47 PM
Those wild and crazy Indianapolis Star reporters. Always fabricating stories without any truth them.

:laugh: Have you heard the controversy around Kravitz saying Peyton's arm is a "noodle?"

Banta
02-17-2012, 02:47 PM
Which part of "[in] last year's playoffs against the Chicago Bulls Granger averaged 21.6 points and never scored fewer than 19 against the best defensive team in the league" did you not understand?

Kravitz nailed this one. Internet fanboys are generally clueless when it comes to Granger. If/when Danny gets traded, that team you saw versus Miami and Cleveland is the Pacers team we'll get, and the Pacers team we'll deserve.

The Pacers team we'll "deserve"?? That's a stupid thing to say. Simply because there is a part of the fan base that doesn't think so highly of one of the players, we "deserve" a team that loses badly to teams like Cleveland?

Idiotic. What paying fans deserve is the best team that can be fielded by management. Players come and go. Eventually Granger will go. When that happens, the paying fans will still "deserve" to see the best team that can be fielded by management.

Since86
02-17-2012, 02:50 PM
You are right Corey Brewer burning his a$$ didn't happen, Talking about not having an argument here, hey it's cool you were wrong and I was right no need to get all mad.

See what you do? You say one thing, like Danny's had one good game. Then Anthem asks "Just one?" You then say, no not one, but only one in a really long time.

I point out that he had another good game just two games before. You then, in a thread talking about Danny being a scorer, bring up good defense.

I bring up how dismissive you were earlier this year when Danny was playing great defense, and the fact that you dismissed all the other quantitive stats that went along with it, and only focused that we were using blocks and steals.

Today, you once again dismiss all those other points and just try to say that he only got those numbers because all those players had bad games. And they just happened to be against Danny.

Now when I point out the fact that your argument is hinging around "they might have had off games" and how horrible of an argument it is, you bring up Corey Brewer. :laugh:

It's called moving the goalposts, and you're quite good at it.

CJ Jones
02-17-2012, 02:55 PM
Which part of "[in] last year's playoffs against the Chicago Bulls Granger averaged 21.6 points and never scored fewer than 19 against the best defensive team in the league" did you not understand?

Kravitz nailed this one. Internet fanboys are generally clueless when it comes to Granger. If/when Danny gets traded, that team you saw versus Miami and Cleveland is the Pacers team we'll get, and the Pacers team we'll deserve.

I saw this earlier and didn't think much of it until everybody started thanking you for it, but you make it sound like people are trying to give him away for nothing. Your post doesn't make sense.

BTW Danny played in the Miami game, and it was over before he got hurt.

edit: or what Banta said


You are one of those people aren't you?
People, just because a player doesn't make defensive team or DPOY doesn't make him a defensive liability. I would take Danny over all but a select few defensive wings in the NBA there are only a few I wouldn't:
Deng (That's damn close though)
Lebron
Durant
Iggy
Danny is a top tier Wing. Not a superstar but one of the best in the league no doubt. Defensively he is better or as good as: Melo, Pierce, Hill...

You're leaving out a few. Gerald Wallace, Shane Battier, and Tony Allen are all better but I get your point. He certainly capable of being a top tier defensive wing.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 03:10 PM
[QUOTE]See what you do? You say one thing, like Danny's had one good game. Then Anthem asks "Just one?" You then say, no not one, but only one in a really long time.

I made the mistake of saying one, I mean to say one in a long time and I mean a total game, not a "Since86 good game" either.



I point out that he had another good game just two games before. You then, in a thread talking about Danny being a scorer, bring up good defense.

The thread is talking about Danny in general is not just his offense, go back and read it again.


I bring up how dismissive you were earlier this year when Danny was playing great defense, and the fact that you dismissed all the other quantitive stats that went along with it, and only focused that we were using blocks and steals.

Danny was never playing great defense, the "Danny is now a great defender because the stats say so thing" was way overrated, he was leaving guys open they were just not making the shots.




Today, you once again dismiss all those other points and just try to say that he only got those numbers because all those players had bad games. And they just happened to be against Danny.

All those players had bad games because they were bad players to begging with, who has he play againts that is as good as him? the out of shape and now in shape Pierce? Lebron? the guy who burned his a$$?... If he is a great as a defender as you think he is why is he getting burned by COREY FREAKING BREWER and the other scrubs? anybody could collect DPOY honors if they get to guard scrubs in every game.


Now when I point out the fact that your argument is hinging around "they might have had off games" and how horrible of an argument it is, you bring up Corey Brewer. :laugh:

It's called moving the goalposts, and you're quite good at it.

:laugh: Maybe the goalposts is moving for you because you can't see it crearly ;)

HickeyS2000
02-17-2012, 03:19 PM
This thread makes me almost as sick as the 5 game losing streak we just endured.

CJ Jones
02-17-2012, 03:33 PM
This thread makes me almost as sick as the 5 game losing streak we just endured.

Well said. That makes your stance on Danny perfectly clear. :rolleyes:

Gamble1
02-17-2012, 03:35 PM
I made the mistake of saying one, I mean to say one in a long time and I mean a total game, not a "Since86 good game" either.

Here is why people can't take you seriously. I can go back 16 days and say Danny had a good game against Minny (36 ppg,, FG% .474, 3P% .625, and 7 rbs) and held his man under 40% and you have the nerve to say "in a long time".

The problem is that you exaggerate and very few people can take take you seriously because of it.

AesopRockOn
02-17-2012, 03:42 PM
Has to be one of the least effective thread titles in a while.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 03:43 PM
Here is why people can't take you seriously. I can go back 16 days and say Danny had a good game against Minny (36 ppg,, FG% .474, 3P% .625, and 7 rbs) and held his man under 40% and you have the nerve to say "in a long time".

The problem is that you exaggerate and very few people can take take you seriously because of it.

Thanks god I get to watch the games and not the stats and I think I have a tear in my eye because some people in some blog don't take me seriously.

Gamble1
02-17-2012, 03:45 PM
Thanks god I get to watch the games and not the stats and I think I have a tear in my eye because some people in some blog don't take me seriously.
No but it just makes you a bait poster that very little people care for on a largerly freindly message board.

edit: Mods you can delete this but its the truth.

CJ Jones
02-17-2012, 03:51 PM
Here is why people can't take you seriously. I can go back 16 days and say Danny had a good game against Minny (36 ppg,, FG% .474, 3P% .625, and 7 rbs) and held his man under 40% and you have the nerve to say "in a long time".

The problem is that you exaggerate and very few people can take take you seriously because of it.

I understand where you're coming from, but it seems like a few people want to nit pick at some of the small inaccuracies in his posts and use those to bash him instead looking at the point he's trying to make. That's why I've made the comment before about him being the PD punching bag.

I was actually trying to step in and take some of the blows for him in this thread but I couldn't get anybody to throw one at me. :D

I'm new though... so I probably don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

Gamble1
02-17-2012, 03:52 PM
If by not been a homer I'm hated I don't care.
I didn't say hate. When you bait people it sort of lowers the quality of this message board and you do that often enough for a guy like me who has never told anybody this before to please stop.

The Sleeze
02-17-2012, 03:55 PM
All those in favor of making an Argument Thread so if people want to go back and forth they can take it there and we don't have to sift through pages of "I'm right"..."No, I'm right"..."Well you suck"...."Nuh uh, you do"

When we see a thread headed this way someone can just post: Take it to the Argument Thread.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 03:56 PM
I didn't say hate. When you bait people it sort of lowers the quality of this message board and you do that often enough for a guy like me who has never told anybody this before to please stop.

What do you mean bait?

Peck
02-17-2012, 03:57 PM
If by not been a homer I'm hated I don't care.

You don't have to be a homer, however you do have to be cautious of saying things with the intent of drawing responses.

I give Vnzla81 a hard time but the reason for that is that he is a good guy. I wish more people could come to the party's and meet him because once you talk to him you get a different feel that you get from him online.

He is a fan, he just happens to want to win a title at all costs. Not the way I would do it, but that's just the way he is.

Since86
02-17-2012, 04:04 PM
I don't hate Vnlza. It's nothing personal. The end goal is a common goal, which is the most important aspect in all of it.

Kuq_e_Zi91
02-17-2012, 04:05 PM
All those in favor of making an Argument Thread so if people want to go back and forth they can take it there and we don't have to sift through pages of "I'm right"..."No, I'm right"..."Well you suck"...."Nuh uh, you do"

When we see a thread headed this way someone can just post: Take it to the Argument Thread.

It's amazing. It's basically the same conversation over and over, season after season. Don't you guys get tired?

Overall, Danny's the best player on this team right now. Why try to pick his game apart and tear him down? We're 18-12 and it's the same old arguments. Just enjoy this ****.

Gamble1
02-17-2012, 04:08 PM
What do you mean bait?
This

You don't have to be a homer, however you do have to be cautious of saying things with the intent of drawing responses.
Drawing people to respond to your post in a largely negative way.

For example... Monta Ellis just went 5-20 and hasn't had a good game in "A LONG TIME".

I second Pecks post. I have met you before and I would much rather have a converstation with you at the party than on this message board. You can be very entertaining but when it comes to trashing our players unnecessarily then it can get old.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 04:11 PM
You don't have to be a homer, however you do have to be cautious of saying things with the intent of drawing responses.

I give Vnzla81 a hard time but the reason for that is that he is a good guy. I wish more people could come to the party's and meet him because once you talk to him you get a different feel that you get from him online.

He is a fan, he just happens to want to win a title at all costs. Not the way I would do it, but that's just the way he is.

True that I need to be more cautious, regarding the "title at all cost" yeah I could say that after waiting through all this crappy years I'm getting impatient, we got West to help Danny and so far meh.

Gamble1
02-17-2012, 04:16 PM
True that I need to be more cautious, regarding the "title at all cost" yeah I could say that after waiting through all this crappy years I'm getting impatient, we got West to help Danny and so far meh.
We are 5th in the East and went through one of the worst losing streaks since Vogel took over.. I am going to go out on a limb here and say thats better than what you thought we would be when we started the season..

NO?

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 04:17 PM
This

Drawing people to respond to your post in a largely negative way.

For example... Monta Ellis just went 5-20 and hasn't had a good game in "A LONG TIME".

I second Pecks post. I have met you before and I would much rather have converstations with you at the party than on this message board. You can be very entertaining but when it comes to trashing our players unnecessarily then it can get old.

Trust me I could be posting about world peace(not Ron Artest) and you would see the same type of responses, the goal for a lot of people here is to prove me wrong and I get it, I know I rub people the wrong way here ;)

By the way Monta Didn't have a good game last time and I'm open to admit it openly, yeah it's not that hard ;) and please don't get me started with Hansbrough :mad:

Trader Joe
02-17-2012, 04:23 PM
And Vnzla says I'm the one that clutters up threads with ongoing arguments.....

Trader Joe
02-17-2012, 04:24 PM
You don't have to be a homer, however you do have to be cautious of saying things with the intent of drawing responses.

I give Vnzla81 a hard time but the reason for that is that he is a good guy. I wish more people could come to the party's and meet him because once you talk to him you get a different feel that you get from him online.

He is a fan, he just happens to want to win a title at all costs. Not the way I would do it, but that's just the way he is.

Hey, I completely understand that, but I don't understand how swapping Granger for someone like Monta Ellis is going to accomplish that.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 04:27 PM
We are 5th in the East and went through one of the worst losing streaks since Vogel took over.. I am going to go out on a limb here and say thats better than what you thought we would be when we started the season..

NO?

I thought we were going to be in 8th or 7th place(31/35 wins, close to Birds goal of 34/38 by the way) right now I think we are going to finish 7th or 6th, before the losing streak and yesterday I was drinking the koolaid even though I could see our weaknesses and I was thinking 5th or probably 4th place.

CJ Jones
02-17-2012, 04:55 PM
Hey, I completely understand that, but I don't understand how swapping Granger for someone like Monta Ellis is going to accomplish that.

What if we could add EJ next year to play alongside Monta and Paul? :devil:

:duck:

Anthem
02-17-2012, 05:21 PM
You see I don't think anyone is in the minority with this opinion. I'm one of Danny's biggest defenders here and I will be the first to tell you that he has a lot of holes in his game.
I think I've been, over the past few years, one of the most consistently pro-Danny posters on the board. And I can definitely admit Danny has holes in his game.

But I still love the guy and am glad to have him on the team.

Dgreenwell3
02-17-2012, 05:25 PM
I think I've been, over the past few years, one of the most consistently pro-Danny posters on the board. And I can definitely admit Danny has holes in his game.

But I still love the guy and am glad to have him on the team.

That's basically how I feel...Danny is a really good player...why constantly remind everyone that he has holes in his game that everyone already knows? This isn't a video game, no one is a perfect player...

McKeyFan
02-17-2012, 05:36 PM
I'm not a huge Granger fan. I like him okay.

But I was glad for the opportunity to watch us play the other night without him. It was ugly.

J7F
02-17-2012, 07:06 PM
I feel like a Monta for Danny trade is a lateral movement... They are both on a similar tier in the NBA hierarchy... Why deal a man that has bled for and carried Indiana through some of it's worst years to a bad team for a lateral trade?

Call me sentimental... But I love a player staying with a franchise for his career... I remember when Danny was our Paul George... He seemed to have limitless potential with a nice all around game... While he didn't develop into what some people had hoped he would... he has developed into a real man in the NBA... I am overall happy with him despite his flaws... And I would love to see him retire a Pacer...

But if a move is ever made regarding Danny I hope it is a clear cut favorable trade for our franchise... And hopefully it would send Danny to a decent destination too... We want players to be loyal and decent to our franchise... Golden rule my friends... Golden rule...

beast23
02-17-2012, 08:32 PM
True that I need to be more cautious, regarding the "title at all cost" yeah I could say that after waiting through all this crappy years I'm getting impatient, we got West to help Danny and so far meh.
Wow. 30 years old? Gotta say, I've followed this team for more years than you'Ve been on the planet. You haven't seen crappy yet, you've only been close to it.

You and I have been on both sides of issues. When we agree, you thank the he'll out of me. When we disagree, you scorn the ground I walk on and will argue to the death. Sometimes I wish you would expound a little on your position rather than throw out a one line zinger that only heightens emotion, but one thing that I, nor anyone else can do, is question your passion for your team.

As for a disagreements thread, I think it is a very bad idea since most threads are intend to spawn discussion, therefore will contain differing opinions. If there wer not discussions of differing opinions, I wouldn't be here. Why bother, I wouldn't be learning anything, so what would I have to gain. After all, as a kid, I always thought kumbaya sucked, so I refused to even learn the words.

And Peck, you may want to shoot me, but there times that I will put out a statement that I don't agree with just to spur on additional conversation or just to entice one of the principle contributors to the argument to offer more comments that need to be made. I realize that's more than a little lazy on my part, but someone almost always obliges.

As for dealing Danny, I have never found the thought of dealing your best play in any way intelligent. You DON'T trade him; you find ways to put players around him as good as, or preferably better than him. THAT is how you improve this team. And THAT is how they move forward to the next level.

NuffSaid
02-17-2012, 09:55 PM
I'm still in love with this team/season. So damn exciting, still, to be 18-12. I don't like how we've gotten here but that's more a testament to what this team makes me believe now. Our defense has been lost,its possible to find it tho. I think we can. Great game by Danny tonight. You could call it clutch i think

I wrote passage below in this linked thread (http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=69761&page=2):


"Where do the Pacers find instant offense?" They've played into this "team scoring" mindset and it's not a bad philosophy to employ when you really don't have "raw, head-full-of-steam, I can't be stopped, All-Star talent" on your roster. But this team collectively is still good enough to wear down most teams as long as everyone's playing minimal minutes and are scoring 10-15 ppg (from players 1 thru 6). To that, DWest was correct. This Pacers roster is deep, but one thing none of them counted on was how injuries would begin to disrupt their game plan. Again, it started with GHill, then Foster, then Collison briefly and Hans and Hibbert and now Granger. And although only Hill and Foster are the only players who have sat out for any significant duration, injuries, fatigue and now a lack of confidence has begun to really set in. So, what's the solution?

Cease with the "team-score by proxy" scheme and put the ball in two or three player's hands and ride them until you can get all of your players back healthy. In short, somebody has got to take on the responsibility of being that Go-To guy. Somebody has got to make up his mind that he will be that player that refuses to be beaten. Somebody has got to be that player that says, "I will take this team on my shoulders and be it's version of Jeremy Lin". Otherwise, it's going to be extremely painful for this team between now and the All-Star break.

Danny Granger was that player last night. He was this team's Go-To guy. He stepped up as Team Captain and willed this team to win. You've kinda seen glimpses of this all season long where he'd play more reserved throughout the first-half but then turn it up a notch in the 3rd qrt, and before you know it he has 25 pts.

I don't mind the Pacers having this "collective scorers" mind-set because the more players who can put up points the harder it is for teams to defend them. Multiple scorers leads to confusion for the defense because they don't know who to stop. But when you start losing those scorers to injury or fatigue, it's difficult to find that one player who is capable of flipping that switch and becoming a scoring machine. The only player we have who can do that is Danny Granger.

Love him or hate him, he's our Go-To guy.

NuffSaid
02-17-2012, 10:01 PM
I'm not a huge Granger fan. I like him okay.

But I was glad for the opportunity to watch us play the other night without him. It was ugly.
I hope that made you appreciate him more. He's alot better than most Pacers fans give him credit.

CJ Jones
02-17-2012, 10:10 PM
Danny's getting a lot of love in here and rightfully so, but I'm not sure anyone was really bashing him.

Danny for Monta would be a lateral move, and I've said that since I got here. I'd like to get him to run the point to play alongside Danny and Paul. I think he's one of the very few options out there that could take this team as constructed to the next level.

Now if Larry ever decides he needs to trade a certain player to take us from a good team to a contender then I'm all for it... I'd trade my mama to beat The LeBrons. That's just me though.

Peck
02-17-2012, 10:19 PM
I hope that made you appreciate him more. He's alot better than most Pacers fans give him credit.

This is really one of the truely weird things about Danny and this conversation.

The one side honestly looks at people talking about Danny and feels that they way over rate him.

The other side honestly looks at people talking about Danny and feels that he is unfairly under rated.

The truth is in the middle.

Dgreenwell3
02-17-2012, 10:22 PM
This is really one of the truely weird things about Danny and this conversation.

The one side honestly looks at people talking about Danny and feels that they way over rate him.

The other side honestly looks at people talking about Danny and feels that he is unfairly under rated.

The truth is in the middle.

AS IT IS IN ALL SPORTS RELATED COMMENTARY!!!!!!!!!!

Peck
02-17-2012, 10:23 PM
AS IT IS IN ALL SPORTS RELATED COMMENTARY!!!!!!!!!!

True

beast23
02-17-2012, 10:29 PM
Danny's getting a lot of love in here and rightfully so, but I'm not sure anyone was really bashing him.

Danny for Monta would be a lateral move, and I've said that since I got here. I'd like to get him to run the point to play alongside Danny and Paul. I think he's one of the very few options out there that could take this team as constructed to the next level.

Now if Larry ever decides he needs to trade a certain player to take us from a good team to a contender then I'm all for it... I'd trade my mama to beat The LeBrons. That's just me though.
I just don't understand the love for Monta with respect to being on the Pacers. He would be a terrible fit... A ball dominant guard who is looking constantly to call his own number first.

We have an emerging and decent post player in Hibbert. We have a very good PnR and mid-range shooter in West. We have two good perimeter shooters in Granger and George, who are both capable of slashing on occasion. The absolute last thing we need is a ball dominant guard who primarily seeks his own opportunities.

I don't see one bit how Monta as a PG makes the other players around him better when he would constantly be depriving them of opportunities. I could handle him as a SG as long as he could adapt his style to a passing offense and not merely become a constant stopping point for the ball... But NEVER as a PG.

With the starters we have, we really shouldn't want a ball dominant PG. But if we had one, I could only hope that he would be a pass-first PG who is looking for opportunities for his teammates as opposed to himself. A PG like Nash is a good example, Monta never will be.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 10:55 PM
Monta Ellis is the only 2guard in the NBA that average 6apg I'm pretty sure he knows how to pass the ball and make his teammates better, I've seen it.

Regarding the Danny/Ellis comparison, like I said before the only thing Danny does better than Monta is shoot threes, rebounds 1.1 more rebounds per game even though he is bigger and is probably a bit better on D, Monta has better numbers than Danny on everything else, not only that but the guy is clutch and there is nobody in the NBA that can stop him one on one, he also makes 11mil and is younger compared to Danny who makes more and produce less, it's a non brainer, now with that said I would love to find a way to get Monta and keep Danny, those two together plus George could be an amazing combo.


http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp?season=22011&league=00&conf=OVERALL&qualified=N&position=0&splitType=9&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=&pager.offset=50

Here are the efficiency numbers for the whole NBA for those that care: Monta is ranked 38th overall, Roy 45th, West 69th and Danny is 70th.

Nuntius
02-17-2012, 11:05 PM
Danny for Monta would be a lateral move, and I've said that since I got here. I'd like to get him to run the point to play alongside Danny and Paul.

Monta running the point?

If people scream about DC being score-first they would rip their eyeballs out if we had Monta running the point.

Nuntius
02-17-2012, 11:09 PM
Monta Ellis is the only 2guard in the NBA that average 6apg I'm pretty sure he knows how to pass the ball and make his teammates better, I've seen it.


You've said yourself a lot of times that the amounts of assists a player has does not mean that he actually looks to pass first. You've said it in regards to Collison a lot. I cannot understand why would you say something like that about Monta. Same rules apply to both players, right?

PS: Monta can pass. But it's not his primary concern. Monta is a scorer. Always was and always will be. He is a good scorer. So, when the defenses double him he can easily throw it to the open man and get an assist. That doesn't mean that he runs the offense, though.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 11:13 PM
Monta running the point?

If people scream about DC being score-first they would rip their eyeballs out if we had Monta running the point.

OKC and Chicago are doing pretty well with similar point guards running the point, Monta at the point this year was getting over 7apg compare to Rose's 7.8apg, I think he is capable at running the point, just imagine how much damage he could do if we are match up againts the Bulls in the playoffs, we wouldn't have to bring AJ or Hill from the bench because DC is too small to guard Rose.

BlueNGold
02-17-2012, 11:13 PM
I'm not an Ellis fan, but it's pretty clear that he's a more explosive and dangerous scorer than Granger. In comparison, Ellis's high this year is 48 points. Granger's is 36. Ellis has had 7 games over 30ppg. Granger's had 3. Ellis also has a lot more steals, a lot more assists and a much better assist/turnover ratio. Teams would probably take Granger in trade first though. There's a lot to think about with acquiring a player...

BlueNGold
02-17-2012, 11:15 PM
Monta running the point?

If people scream about DC being score-first they would rip their eyeballs out if we had Monta running the point.

In some ways I agree. However, there's a huge difference in quality.

Peck
02-17-2012, 11:16 PM
Monta Ellis is the only 2guard in the NBA that average 6apg I'm pretty sure he knows how to pass the ball and make his teammates better, I've seen it.

Regarding the Danny/Ellis comparison, like I said before the only thing Danny does better than Monta is shoot threes, rebounds 1.1 more rebounds per game even though he is bigger and is probably a bit better on D, Monta has better numbers than Danny on everything else, not only that but the guy is clutch and there is nobody in the NBA that can stop him one on one, he also makes 11mil and is younger compared to Danny who makes more and produce less, it's a non brainer, now with that said I would love to find a way to get Monta and keep Danny, those two together plus George could be an amazing combo.


http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp?season=22011&league=00&conf=OVERALL&qualified=N&position=0&splitType=9&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=&pager.offset=50

Here are the efficiency numbers for the whole NBA for those that care: Monta is ranked 38th overall, Roy 45th, West 69th and Danny is 70th.

Now come on, even you can't be serious about this one.

I'll buy it when you say Danny can sometimes be a lazy defender but come on.....

Monta is at best & I'm being generous here a mediocre defender.

Danny when he puts his mind to it can be a very good defender.

It's not even close.

Also here is a spoiler for you.

D. Granger F 31:58 10-16 3-3 3-4 +7 0 1 1 3 1 2 2 0 2 26
D. West F 35:29 7-12 0-0 4-5 +9 2 5 7 4 2 1 3 1 0 18
R. Hibbert C 34:27 5-9 0-0 0-2 0 4 12 16 4 2 0 1 2 0 10
P. George G-F 21:20 2-8 0-1 3-4 +4 0 5 5 1 2 0 1 0 1 7
D. Collison G 38:56 1-12 1-3 3-3 +4 0 4 4 9 3 2 1 0 1 6
G. Hill 30:34 5-9 3-6 1-1 +3 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 0 14
T. Hansbrough 20:50 2-6 0-0 0-0 +2 0 3 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 4
L. Stephenson 05:12 0-1 0-1 0-0 -5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L. Amundson 05:12 0-3 0-0 0-0 -5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
D. Jones 16:02 3-7 1-2 2-2 -4 2 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 9
J. Foster NWT - Lower Back
J. Pendergraph DNP - Coach's Decision
A.J. Price DNP - Coach's Decision
Total 240 35-83 8-16 16-21 9 34 43 25 13 9 11 5 5 94
42.2% 50.0% 76.2% team rebs: 5 total to: 12
Golden State Warriors (5-10)
field goalsrebounds
pos min fgm-a 3pm-a ftm-a +/- off def tot ast pf st to bs ba pts
D. Wright F 30:33 6-10 4-7 2-2 -2 0 5 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 18
D. Lee F-C 38:05 4-15 0-0 2-2 -14 3 11 14 2 4 2 2 0 1 10
A. Biedrins C 24:18 0-1 0-0 0-0 -5 0 4 4 0 4 0 1 1 1 0
M. Ellis G 34:43 11-20 0-1 3-4 -9 1 2 3 6 3 0 2 0 2 25
S. Curry G 29:04 5-15 2-6 0-0 -4 1 1 2 3 2 0 3 0 0 12
N. Robinson 18:56 3-6 0-2 0-0 +1 0 1 1 5 1 0 3 0 0 6
B. Rush 19:35 2-2 2-2 0-0 +1 0 6 6 1 1 0 1 1 0 6
E. Udoh 18:26 1-1 0-0 0-0 +7 0 2 2 0 4 0 3 3 0 2
D. McGuire 13:02 2-4 0-0 0-0 +4 2 6 8 0 0 0 2 0 0 4
K. Thompson 13:17 3-6 2-5 0-0 +6 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 8

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 11:23 PM
Now come on, even you can't be serious about this one.

I'll buy it when you say Danny can sometimes be a lazy defender but come on.....

Monta is at best & I'm being generous here a mediocre defender.

Danny when he puts his mind to it can be a very good defender.

It's not even close.


Again and I keep repeating the same thing Mark Jackson has Monta playing D this year, he is a good defender, there was one part of the game two days ago were GS let the Trailblazers score 30 points in a quarter and Mark Jackson was telling the players "this is not the old GS we play defense here" they are trying to play better D they just don't have the players to do it yet.

And yes when Danny put his mind to it he is a good defender but how many times that happens?

I also have an spoiler for you ;)

:tongue:

Nuntius
02-17-2012, 11:25 PM
OKC and Chicago are doing pretty well with similar point guards running the point, Monta at the point this year was getting over 7apg compare to Rose's 7.8apg, I think he is capable at running the point, just imagine how much damage he could do if we are match up againts the Bulls in the playoffs, we wouldn't have to bring AJ or Hill from the bench because DC is too small to guard Rose.

Having a score-first PG certainly can work.

However, most people here argue that we need a pass-first point guard to run our offense. A lot of people hate on DC for being score-first for this very reason.

So, what do we really want? A pass-first PG that can facilitate our offense? Or a score-first PG that can run our offense by drawing doubles and passing out of them but could also potentially shoot us out of games?

Nuntius
02-17-2012, 11:29 PM
In some ways I agree. However, there's a huge difference in quality.

True. However, a lot of people who talk about a PG upgrade say that we need a different type not a more talented one. If they hated on DC for not being talented enough to be our Rose or our Westbrook then I could really see their points. But hating on DC for being score-first and advocating getting Monta just does not make sense.

Then again, I'm not entirely sure that the people that talk about a different type of PG are the same ones who advocate to get Monta. So, they could be different groups of people.

But since, at least one person has this opinion, I continue to find it illogical :p

Gamble1
02-17-2012, 11:36 PM
Monta Ellis is the only 2guard in the NBA that average 6apg I'm pretty sure he knows how to pass the ball and make his teammates better, I've seen it.

Regarding the Danny/Ellis comparison, like I said before the only thing Danny does better than Monta is shoot threes, rebounds 1.1 more rebounds per game even though he is bigger and is probably a bit better on D, Monta has better numbers than Danny on everything else, not only that but the guy is clutch and there is nobody in the NBA that can stop him one on one, he also makes 11mil and is younger compared to Danny who makes more and produce less, it's a non brainer, now with that said I would love to find a way to get Monta and keep Danny, those two together plus George could be an amazing combo.


http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp?season=22011&league=00&conf=OVERALL&qualified=N&position=0&splitType=9&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=&pager.offset=50

Here are the efficiency numbers for the whole NBA for those that care: Monta is ranked 38th overall, Roy 45th, West 69th and Danny is 70th.
One last thing vnzla.. monta can opt out after next season so a straight up swap is not worth it imo. I would love to have both danny and monta but I doubt the salary will be there after hibbert signs.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 11:38 PM
[QUOTE=Nuntius;1376796]You've said yourself a lot of times that the amounts of assists a player has does not mean that he actually looks to pass first. You've said it in regards to Collison a lot. I cannot understand why would you say something like that about Monta. Same rules apply to both players, right?

Yes and I've never say that Monta is some kind of pass first point guard, I was responding to the notion that Monta is some kind of ballhog that doesn't know how to get rid of the ball ala Melo.



PS: Monta can pass. But it's not his primary concern. Monta is a scorer. Always was and always will be. He is a good scorer. So, when the defenses double him he can easily throw it to the open man and get an assist. That doesn't mean that he runs the offense, though

Yes Monta is an scorer first like Rose and Westbrook, I think he could run an offense just fine like those guys, I've seen him doing it by the way, he has actually been in charge of running the offense in GS for some years now and they are still one the top offenses in the NBA, he is really good in the pick and roll and he is big enough were he doesn't have any problem in feeding the post or making easy passes.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 11:42 PM
One last thing vnzla.. monta can opt out after next season so a straight up swap is not worth it imo. I would love to have both danny and monta but I doubt the salary will be there after hibbert signs.

Yeah I don't know how salaries work on that one, I'm pretty sure the pacers wouldn't mind going over if they have a team of Monta,PG,Danny,West, Hibbert.

TheDavisBrothers
02-17-2012, 11:51 PM
Again and I keep repeating the same thing Mark Jackson has Monta playing D this year, he is a good defender, there was one part of the game two days ago were GS let the Trailblazers score 30 points in a quarter and Mark Jackson was telling the players "this is not the old GS we play defense here" they are trying to play better D they just don't have the players to do it yet.

And yes when Danny put his mind to it he is a good defender but how many times that happens?

I also have an spoiler for you ;)

:tongue:

As far as I'm concerned even a lazy Granger is a better defender then Monta :-p, another think I don't like about Ellis is that even tho he is a big time scorer, he is not a very efficient, he scores a ton, but he also takes a ton of shots

Nuntius
02-17-2012, 11:54 PM
Yes and I've never say that Monta is some kind of pass first point guard, I was responding to the notion that Monta is some kind of ballhog that doesn't know how to get rid of the ball ala Melo.

A player can have a decent number of assists and still be a ball hog. Kobe Bryant has a career average of 4.7 APG. Monta Ellis has a career average of 4.3 APG. And Kobe is one of the definitions of a ball hog.

That said, Monta is doing a better job lately averaging 5.3 APG in 09-10, 5.6 APG in 10-11 and 6.0 (as you said) in this season.

Also, BlueNGold did not say that Monta is a ball hog. He said that he is ball dominant. Steve Nash is ball dominant as well but he is not a ball hog at all.



Yes Monta is an scorer first like Rose and Westbrook, I think he could run an offense just fine like those guys, I've seen him doing it by the way, he has actually been in charge of running the offense in GS for some years now and they are still one the top offenses in the NBA, he is really good in the pick and roll and he is big enough were he doesn't have any problem in feeding the post or making easy passes.

The question is simple I think. Can Monta act as catch and shoot type of player? It is quite evident that our team like to see Danny and George driving to the basket and Hibbert / West / Hansbrough posting up.

Our offense is not run like Chicago's or OKC's. Personally, I don't see Monta fits here. I don't think that a PG who relies on driving or on a 1-on-1 situations is going to complement our system. But that's just my opinion.

vnzla81
02-17-2012, 11:56 PM
As far as I'm concerned even a lazy Granger is a better defender then Monta :-p, another think I don't like about Ellis is that even tho he is a big time scorer, he is not a very efficient, he scores a ton, but he also takes a ton of shots

He takes a lot of shots because he is pretty much the only thing they have when Curry is hurt, why we never complained when Danny was taking a lot of shots and averaged 25ppg? because we had a horrible team right? well Monta has been in that same situation for a while now, if Monta comes here I don't expect him to take that many shots or score that much anyway, we would have the weapons so he doesn't have to do that.

TheDavisBrothers
02-18-2012, 12:00 AM
He takes a lot of shots because he is pretty much the only thing they have when Curry is hurt, why we never complained when Danny was taking a lot of shots and averaged 25ppg? because we had a horrible team right? well Monta has been in that same situation for a while now, if Monta comes here I don't expect him to take that many shots or score that much anyway, we would have the weapons so he doesn't have to do that.

I don't really have much of a problem with him taking a bunch of shoots, I have a problem with his points to shots ratio

Nuntius
02-18-2012, 12:50 AM
He takes a lot of shots because he is pretty much the only thing they have when Curry is hurt, why we never complained when Danny was taking a lot of shots and averaged 25ppg?

Head to head comparison between Danny Granger and Monta Ellis per Basketball Reference from 09-10 till now (I'm not putting 08-09 in cause Monta only played 25 games):

Per 36 Minutes:

09-10: Danny Granger averaged 23.7 PPG in 18.0 FGAs. Monta Ellis averaged 22.2 PPG in 19.1 FGAs.

10-11: Danny Granger averaged 21.1 PPG in 16.4 FGAs. Monta Ellis averaged 21.5 PPG in 18.0 FGAs.

11-12: Danny Granger averages 19.6 PPG in 16.6 FGAs. Monta Ellis averages 21.1 PPG in 18.2 FGAs.

Conclusion: Danny Granger scores more points in less attempts during the 09-10 season. Monta Ellis scores 0.4 PPG more than Danny Granger during the 10-11 season but he also takes 1.6 attempts more. Monta Ellis scores 1.5 PPG more than Danny Granger but he also takes 1.6 attempts more than Danny Granger during this season.

So, Granger clearly wins the comparison in 09-10. Monta scores more than Danny in the last two years (since Vogel came in) but he continues to take more shots than Danny. During 10-11 he is scoring only 0.4 points more on 1.6 more attempts. 0.4 points on 1.6 attempts is not going to cut it so I'll give this year to Danny as well. This year he did a better job as he scores 1.5 more points on 1.6 more attempts. The ratio has yet to be positive but I'll give this year to Monta since I'm generous.

Even if we give the last year to Monta, Danny is still the most effective in this comparison. He wins this "series" 2 to 1 (and frankly this year is more probably a tie but anyway).

Also, Danny Granger has only taken more FGAs per 36 than Monta in 2 seasons. 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 (the season that Monta only played 25 games). During 07-08, he took 0.7 more attempts (15.1 to 14.4) and scored 0.4 PPG more (19.6 PPG to 19.2 PPG) in what was Monta's most accurate year (shooting at a .531 clip). During 08-09, Danny took 1.6 more attempts (19.0 to 17.4) and scored 6.6 PPG more.

Links to those stats: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/ellismo01.html

and

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/grangda01.html

There's an explanation for those stats. Danny gets to the line more over the course of his career* (5.3 FTAs for Danny, 4.7 for Monta) and shoots those FTs on a better clip (Danny is at .844 throughout his career while Monta is at .772). Also, Danny is a better 3 point shooter (Danny at .384, Monta at .325). Monta has a higher FG percentage, though (Monta shoots .466 while Danny shoots .438).

Also, a final stat line:

Danny Granger averages 15.1 FGAs throughout his career per 36 minutes. Monta Ellis averages 16.3 FGAs throughout his career per 36 minutes. Both players score 19.7 PPG throughout their careers per 36 minutes.

So, if there's anything that this stat line tells us is that both players are equally good scorers but Danny shoots less than Monta.

All that said, I'm not a person that believes particularly in statistics. But they do say something in that case.

PS: Also, David Lee is better than Troy Murphy.

*The FT discrepancy can be explained by various ways. Someone can say that Danny gets more calls since he was an all-star. And that's partially true since his FTAs per 36 went up in his all-star year from 4.7 to 6.8 (and they only fell below 6 this year in which he averages 5.4 FTAs). Someone else could say that Monta's FTA average took a hit in the year he was injured as he only took 3.8 FTAs that season. Some other people could point out that Granger is bigger and stronger and is thus harder to stop when he drives and people foul him more. Frankly, all those people have some valid points. I'm not sure which one stands, though. It could be a combination of all the above.

TheDavisBrothers
02-18-2012, 01:01 AM
Head to head comparison between Danny Granger and Monta Ellis per Basketball Reference from 09-10 till now (I'm not putting 08-09 in cause Monta only played 25 games):

Per 36 Minutes:

09-10: Danny Granger averaged 23.7 PPG in 18.0 FGAs. Monta Ellis averaged 22.2 PPG in 19.1 FGAs.

10-11: Danny Granger averaged 21.1 PPG in 16.4 FGAs. Monta Ellis averaged 21.5 PPG in 18.0 FGAs.

11-12: Danny Granger averages 19.6 PPG in 16.6 FGAs. Monta Ellis averages 21.1 PPG in 18.2 FGAs.

Conclusion: Danny Granger scores more points in less attempts during the 09-10 season. Monta Ellis scores 0.4 PPG more than Danny Granger during the 10-11 season but he also takes 1.6 attempts more. Monta Ellis scores 1.5 PPG more than Danny Granger but he also takes 1.6 attempts more than Danny Granger during this season.

So, Granger clearly wins the comparison in 09-10. Monta scores more than Danny in the last two years (since Vogel came in) but he continues to take more shots than Danny. During 10-11 he is scoring only 0.4 points more on 1.6 more attempts. 0.4 points on 1.6 attempts is not going to cut it so I'll give this year to Danny as well. This year he did a better job as he scores 1.5 more points on 1.6 more attempts. The ratio has yet to be positive but I'll give this year to Monta since I'm generous.

Even if we give the last year to Monta, Danny is still the most effective in this comparison. He wins this "series" 2 to 1 (and frankly this year is more probably a tie but anyway).

Also, Danny Granger has only taken more FGAs per 36 than Monta in 2 seasons. 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 (the season that Monta only played 25 games). During 07-08, he took 0.7 more attempts (15.1 to 14.4) and scored 0.4 PPG more (19.6 PPG to 19.2 PPG) in what was Monta's most accurate year (shooting at a .531 clip). During 08-09, Danny took 1.6 more attempts (19.0 to 17.4) and scored 6.6 PPG more.

Links to those stats: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/ellismo01.html

and

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/grangda01.html

There's an explanation for those stats. Danny gets to the line more over the course of his career* (5.3 FTAs for Danny, 4.7 for Monta) and shoots those FTs on a better clip (Danny is at .844 throughout his career while Monta is at .772). Also, Danny is a better 3 point shooter (Danny at .384, Monta at .325). Monta has a higher FG percentage, though (Monta shoots .466 while Danny shoots .438).

Also, a final stat line:

Danny Granger averages 15.1 FGAs throughout his career per 36 minutes. Monta Ellis averages 16.3 FGAs throughout his career per 36 minutes. Both players score 19.7 PPG throughout their careers per 36 minutes.

So, if there's anything that this stat line tells us is that both players are equally good scorers but Danny shoots less than Monta.

All that said, I'm not a person that believes particularly in statistics. But they do say something in that case.

PS: Also, David Lee is better than Troy Murphy.

*The FT discrepancy can be explained by various ways. Someone can say that Danny gets more calls since he was an all-star. And that's partially true since his FTAs per 36 went up in his all-star year from 4.7 to 6.8 (and they only fell below 6 this year in which he averages 5.4 FTAs). Someone else could say that Monta's FTA average took a hit in the year he was injured as he only took 3.8 FTAs that season. Some other people could point out that Granger is bigger and stronger and is thus harder to stop when he drives and people foul him more. Frankly, all those people have some valid points. I'm not sure which one stands, though. It could be a combination of all the above.

This is my point, thanks for helping this lazy typer :D

cdash
02-18-2012, 01:15 AM
I disagree with almost everything vnzla says, but I have a fantastic time bickering with him.

McKeyFan
02-18-2012, 07:13 AM
Monta running the point?

If people scream about DC being score-first they would rip their eyeballs out if we had Monta running the point.

Try me.

BlueNGold
02-18-2012, 09:41 AM
I disagree with almost everything vnzla says, but I have a fantastic time bickering with him.

He's a little harder on Danny than I would be, but facts are facts.

Granger was an all-star and now he's not...and in the past few years there's a very good reason or two for that.

One has been his defense. He appears to be shoring that up. It's still not elite or even Iggy level pressure. IOW, he's not riding in as an all-star even on the basis of his improved defense. At the moment, it is about average or maybe slightly above average as a starting SF.

The other is offense. Granger is a great shooter and getting better at mid range. However, his offensive game is still pretty one dimensional compared to all-stars around the league. His handle is very weak and a real liability. I must say that he's improved that some since he doesn't constantly charge like he used to. Still, it's a weakness. He does not see the floor well and pass it...and even guys like David West and Paul George do that better. Also, he is not a threat to come into the paint and flush it. In fact, I'm not even sure he is capable of dunking in a little traffic. Name another 6'8" all-star SF who never dunks unless nobody is within 20 feet. Dunking doesn't make an all-star...but it does indicate how explosive he is. I suppose he's not all that athletic...but that's not good either...

CJ Jones
02-18-2012, 02:25 PM
I just don't understand the love for Monta with respect to being on the Pacers. He would be a terrible fit... A ball dominant guard who is looking constantly to call his own number first.

We have an emerging and decent post player in Hibbert. We have a very good PnR and mid-range shooter in West. We have two good perimeter shooters in Granger and George, who are both capable of slashing on occasion. The absolute last thing we need is a ball dominant guard who primarily seeks his own opportunities.

I don't see one bit how Monta as a PG makes the other players around him better when he would constantly be depriving them of opportunities. I could handle him as a SG as long as he could adapt his style to a passing offense and not merely become a constant stopping point for the ball... But NEVER as a PG.

With the starters we have, we really shouldn't want a ball dominant PG. But if we had one, I could only hope that he would be a pass-first PG who is looking for opportunities for his teammates as opposed to himself. A PG like Nash is a good example, Monta never will be.

<a href="http://photobucket.com/images/puppet%20master" target="_blank"><img src="http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/tink-this/puppet.jpg" border="0" alt="puppet master Pictures, Images and Photos"/></a> ... I'm not sure if you're serious but I'll oblige.

Monta's perceived weaknesses are our strengths, and our weaknesses are Monta's strengths. It's really that simple.

Monta's a world class athlete and there's nothing he can't do on a basketball court. People want to harp on his defense and shot attempts, but those are things that can be fixed.

Monta has all the tools to be a top 10-15 player IMO.

rabid
02-18-2012, 08:18 PM
One good game and we crown him as the savior?


Who won that game again? a ok good try :thumbsup:

Your claim was that he'd only had "one good game," not that we didn't win.

Way to move the goalposts.

rabid
02-18-2012, 09:22 PM
... sometimes I get the feeling that some people think we have the "next coming" in our hands, you know like somebody thinking that we have the next Reggie or something like that :-p

"Some people" = a straw man argument. To readers like me, you would have a lot more credibility if you were reacting to ACTUAL QUOTES of posters saying this type of stuff, instead of first making negative comments, then being called out on it, and claiming that you're only reacting to what "some people" are apparently saying.

Edit: seriously, who here is calling Granger the "second coming?" You're putting it in quotes so you must have someone specific in mind, right?

beast23
02-18-2012, 09:52 PM
I'm not sure if you're serious but I'll oblige.

Monta's perceived weaknesses are our strengths, and our weaknesses are Monta's strengths. It's really that simple.

Monta's a world class athlete and there's nothing he can't do on a basketball court. People want to harp on his defense and shot attempts, but those are things that can be fixed.

Monta has all the tools to be a top 10-15 player IMO.
I was being very serious.

I totally agree that Monta is a great athlete. However, don't ever attempt to sell me on the old argument of "but those are things that can be fixed."

To first attempt to sell me on that argument, the player must exhibit the behavior on at least a partially consistent basis that I would want him to change to. That means, first and foremost, that the player must exhibit an ability and a WILLINGNESS, to change.

See where I am headed with this...

Once upon a time, the Pacers had a player named Jalen effing Rose. JfR, on occassion, was one of the better basketball players that we had ever had on the Pacers through the years. Unfortunately, JfR had a problem. Although he was quite capable of playing defense, excellent defense as a matter of fact, he was very rarely willing to put out the effort on the defensive end of the floor to do so. I really thought at times that Jalen only bizitched about calls on the offensive end because he thought that gave him a free pass out of having to recover back and play defense.

And, although JfR was a very capable passer, he had a habit of overlooking teammates to call his own number on the offensive end of the floor. Many a possession died when the ball reached his hands.

So, as you can see, JfR had some qualities that did not exactly endear him to his own teammates.

The problem is, like Monta, JfR was a hell of an athlete and could do damn near anything with a basketball... if only he were willing to change.

Your argument reminds me of the zillions of women out there who marry what would be a great guy if only they could make a few minor changes to him. So, they spend 10-15 years of marriage unhappy, only to realize that a leopard rarely changes its spots. Ladies out there... men are NOT going to change without a willingness on their part to effect that change. You can't wave a magic wand and fix them, you can only point out the positives of making said changes and spend our time waiting for those changes.

And CJ Jones, the primary habits of basketball players are the exact same. Players add thing to their games and they can adjust them somewhat, but rarely do they totally re-adjust their internal tendencies about how they choose to approach the game.

So, when it comes to making a major commitment to a player like Monta, all I have to say is "you gotta show me first". Let me see him make defense a major part of his game and let me see him behave in a way that makes me think he is a teammate who is not only capable, but is completely willing to share the ball. Show me that on a consistent basis, and I'll join your team and will be in your corner preaching to anyone who would oppose him coming here.

But until then, I wouldn't want him. In his present state, I can only assume that like JfR, after a short while Monta would wear out his welcome and have a negative affect on team chemistry.

You see, I believe a team is the sum of its parts and far more important than any one part itself. I'm just not sure at all that Monta shares that sentiment.

So serious? You betcha I was being serious.

P.S... By the way, if you have not been able to determine it, JfR is in a very, very small group of basketball players that I have despised most through the years. Only because of his total waste of talent. He should have been an HOF player, but unfortunately, ended his career nowhere close.

vnzla81
02-18-2012, 10:10 PM
"Some people" = a straw man argument. To readers like me, you would have a lot more credibility if you were reacting to ACTUAL QUOTES of posters saying this type of stuff, instead of first making negative comments, then being called out on it, and claiming that you're only reacting to what "some people" are apparently saying.

Edit: seriously, who here is calling Granger the "second coming?" You're putting it in quotes so you must have someone specific in mind, right?

It was a joke towards Peck, take it easy.

vnzla81
02-18-2012, 11:42 PM
OK so it looks to me like not many people has seen Monta at work, here is a good video of him.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uZuGNQjSVEs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>




And yes they lost the game but that's not the point ;)

TheDavisBrothers
02-18-2012, 11:52 PM
OK so it looks to me like not many people has seen Monta at work, here is a good video of him.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uZuGNQjSVEs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>




And yes they lost the game but that's not the point ;)
:rolleyes:

LA_Confidential
02-18-2012, 11:55 PM
Having a score-first PG certainly can work.

However, most people here argue that we need a pass-first point guard to run our offense. A lot of people hate on DC for being score-first for this very reason.

So, what do we really want? A pass-first PG that can facilitate our offense? Or a score-first PG that can run our offense by drawing doubles and passing out of them but could also potentially shoot us out of games?

Either of those would work but the problem with DC is that he doesnt score or facilitate at an elite or even just below elite level. Rondo facilitates, Monta scores and Nash can do both, he's just old. So in terms of hating on DC, I wouldn't call it hate, it's more so "We like you but not as much as we'd like to because you aren't who we thought we were getting."

Nuntius
02-19-2012, 12:10 AM
Either of those would work but the problem with DC is that he doesnt score or facilitate at an elite or even just below elite level. Rondo facilitates, Monta scores and Nash can do both, he's just old. So in terms of hating on DC, I wouldn't call it hate, it's more so "We like you but not as much as we'd like to because you aren't who we thought we were getting."

DC does not score because he is not looking to score this year. This year he is averaging 10.3 FGAs per 36. Rajon Rondo averages 11.8 FGAs per 36. Steve Nash averages 11.7 FGAs per 36. Monta Ellis averages 18.1 FGAs per 36.

DC does try to facilitate this year. Can he facilitate like Rondo or Nash? No, he cannot. But he does look for his teammates. I'll agree with one thing. Throughout this season (my first season of watching the NBA), I've been convinced that DC would be more effective as a scorer off the bench for now. Facilitating does not seem to be his game most of the time.

But to say that DC looks for his own shot first is absurd this year. He is shooting way less than Rondo and Nash who primarily look to facilitate.

LA_Confidential
02-19-2012, 12:28 AM
DC does not score because he is not looking to score this year. This year he is averaging 10.3 FGAs per 36. Rajon Rondo averages 11.8 FGAs per 36. Steve Nash averages 11.7 FGAs per 36. Monta Ellis averages 18.1 FGAs per 36.

DC does try to facilitate this year. Can he facilitate like Rondo or Nash? No, he cannot. But he does look for his teammates. I'll agree with one thing. Throughout this season (my first season of watching the NBA), I've been convinced that DC would be more effective as a scorer off the bench for now. Facilitating does not seem to be his game most of the time.

But to say that DC looks for his own shot first is absurd this year. He is shooting way less than Rondo and Nash who primarily look to facilitate.

Ive never accused him of being a shoot first player but that is what he is best at doing. Even still he doesn't do it well enough in a capacity for us to get to the next level. Even though he's trying to be a better facilitator, he's still lacking heavily in the decision making department.

Just watching the games it always seems to me like the opposition has no "respect" for or "fear" of his game. You Know what Danny, West, and Roy can do. PG can explode offensively or defensively any given night but what about DC? He's fast? Ok......

I do however 100% agree that he'd be better served coming off the bench looking for his own shot but we already have GH3 who i feel is better.

So in turn, if we could somehow get a package together to bring in a Rondo, Monta :pray: or Nash, then im all for that. Its been my biggest gripe ALL YEAR. Upgrade the Point Guard Spot or Bust!

Nuntius
02-19-2012, 12:32 AM
OK so it looks to me like not many people has seen Monta at work, here is a good video of him.

And yes they lost the game but that's not the point ;)

I've seen this video and I also watched a large part of this game. This loss was on Curry with his 2 consecutive turnovers and the missed jumper so we can agree that it was not Monta's fault that GS lost that particular one.

Now, watch the video again. Look at his shot selection. See the amount of tough shots he attempts. See the amount of shots he takes early in the shot clock. Does he make them? In this particular case, he does. Does he make them all the time? His nights of 2-12, 5-17 (twice), 6-26, 8-22 and 9-25 say that he does not make them all the time. It is well-known that he has the ability to hit tough shots but they are not going to fall night in and night out (which is why they are called tough shots to begin with).

Look, I'm not doubting Monta's talent. He is a very talented player. But our team, currently, is about taking high percentage shots. Monta is not the kind of player to take the high percentage shot. He likes taking tough shots and while he is able to hit them, that's not going to happen all the time.

Nuntius
02-19-2012, 12:45 AM
Ive never accused him of being a shoot first player but that is what he is best at doing. Even still he doesn't do it well enough in a capacity for us to get to the next level. Even though he's trying to be a better facilitator, he's still lacking heavily in the decision making department.

Just watching the games it always seems to me like the opposition has no "respect" for or "fear" of his game. You Know what Danny, West, and Roy can do. PG can explode offensively or defensively any given night but what about DC? He's fast? Ok......


You haven't accused him of being shot first, that's true.. Several other people have, though. I'll agree that he needs to fix his decision making. He also has some other flaws in his game that he needs to fix (entry passes, fast breaks, pick and roll offense and defense, fighting through screens etc).

But he's trying to improve himself. He is trying to fit the team concept. That's why I don't want to ship him. I sincerely believe that this would ruin the team chemistry.

Regarding on enemies respecting or fearing his game. They don't fear him cause he does not get a whole lot of attempts. However, DC is a great shooter. In every season of his still young career his TS% is over .500 (this is his lowest season at .524). If he actually learned to play the pick and roll he would create a lot of jumper shots for himself and we know that his jumpers are lethal.

Asher99
02-19-2012, 12:53 AM
I would rather have Danny over Monta. Granger could have big scoring nights too if he took as many shots as Ellis takes.

The last 2 and a half years Danny has taken 20 or more attempts 31 times and seen 25 or more just 3 times but never reached 30 attempts over that time frame. Monta on the other hand has taken 20 or more 105 times and taken 25 or more 39 times, he's made it to 30 attempts 7 times and even had a 39 attempt game and that game only netted 36 points.

Danny has scored 30+ on less than 20 shots 10 times over the period while Monta has done it only two times. Both of Monta's games were 30 on the nose while Danny has broke 35 points 4 times on less than 20 attempts. Danny has got 30+ points 26 times while shooting under 25 shots over that period while Monta has done it just 23 times.

vnzla81
02-19-2012, 12:54 AM
I've seen this video and I also watched a large part of this game. This loss was on Curry with his 2 consecutive turnovers and the missed jumper so we can agree that it was not Monta's fault that GS lost that particular one.

Now, watch the video again. Look at his shot selection. See the amount of tough shots he attempts. See the amount of shots he takes early in the shot clock. Does he make them? In this particular case, he does. Does he make them all the time? His nights of 2-12, 5-17 (twice), 6-26, 8-22 and 9-25 say that he does not make them all the time. It is well-known that he has the ability to hit tough shots but they are not going to fall night in and night out (which is why they are called tough shots to begin with).

Look, I'm not doubting Monta's talent. He is a very talented player. But our team, currently, is about taking high percentage shots. Monta is not the kind of player to take the high percentage shot. He likes taking tough shots and while he is able to hit them, that's not going to happen all the time.

Those look like tough shots to you but those are common shots for players like Monta, Kobe, Rose, EJ, Westbrook and Dwade, there is a reason why a lot of those guys are great, BECAUSE THEY MAKE THE TOUGH SHOTS, that's what the Pacers are lacking of, a guy who can create his own shot and can make tough shots.

CJ Jones
02-19-2012, 12:55 AM
I was being very serious.



Looks like I probably should of explained more huh...

You do realize that Monta's played mostly sg for years now. Every night he goes up against taller and stronger players and still manages to put up great numbers.

Defensively he's not nearly as bad as you and others make it sound. If he's guarding pgs his defense is gonna look a lot better then when he's guarding players like Kobe Bryant, James Harden, Kevin Martin, Ray Allen, and our own 6'10" Paul George. Can you think of anyone else in the league that has a size disadvantage like that night in and night out? If you put him at pg he doesn't have that problem. All of sudden he's the one with the advantage. He becomes taller, stronger, and more athletic then all but 2 pgs in the league. He's also a willing passer evident by his 6 apg. That would be tops for sgs.

And Beast, as far as your analogy goes I gotta disagree. If that was the case our beloved Danny would be **** out of luck when it comes to regaining his glory day defense. Hasn't it been **** long enough to call it a "primary habit"? Why shouldn't I believe Monta can change if I think Danny can? They both have the tools, they just need to apply them.

Imagine Paul and Monta on the break. Imagine all the open looks Danny and David would get out of the PNR. Imagine nationally televised games again. Imagine the fans coming back and putting the 'Life' back into Bankers Life Fieldhouse because, well, who could avoid the show? I can envision all these with Monta running the point for this team.

I never said it wouldn't be risky, but it's on Mr. Bird and company to decide if Monta's got the right mentality for the job... not you or I. Don't pretend to act like you know the man because you read the internet a lot.

I can understand if you and others have an emotional attachment with certain players... but I don't. I couldn't care less about how comfortable they are in the locker room. It's nice to get along, but having good off court chemistry isn't nearly as important as having good on court chemistry. You can win without being friends.

Kuq_e_Zi91
02-19-2012, 01:11 AM
He's a little harder on Danny than I would be, but facts are facts.

Granger was an all-star and now he's not...and in the past few years there's a very good reason or two for that.

One has been his defense. He appears to be shoring that up. It's still not elite or even Iggy level pressure. IOW, he's not riding in as an all-star even on the basis of his improved defense. At the moment, it is about average or maybe slightly above average as a starting SF.

The other is offense. Granger is a great shooter and getting better at mid range. However, his offensive game is still pretty one dimensional compared to all-stars around the league. His handle is very weak and a real liability. I must say that he's improved that some since he doesn't constantly charge like he used to. Still, it's a weakness. He does not see the floor well and pass it...and even guys like David West and Paul George do that better. Also, he is not a threat to come into the paint and flush it. In fact, I'm not even sure he is capable of dunking in a little traffic. Name another 6'8" all-star SF who never dunks unless nobody is within 20 feet. Dunking doesn't make an all-star...but it does indicate how explosive he is. I suppose he's not all that athletic...but that's not good either...

Fans have a very short, and perhaps selective, memory. It seems like just a few games ago we were commenting about Granger's improved handle as he was making moves to the rim and dishing it to Hibbert in ways we've never seen before. It was one of the main aspects he worked on this summer.

Danny has also increased his assists every single season except for 09-10 when he had 171 compared to 183 in 08-09. However, he was also plagued by injuries that season and played 5 less games. He was averaging 2.8 apg that season, so 2.8 x 5 = 14 and 171 + 14 = 185. Last year he had 203 assists. The point is, we know this guy works on his game tirelessly. We know he has the desire to improve on his weaknesses.

I'm not sure where the idea that Paul George sees the floor better than Danny comes from. How many times have we seen Paul drive to the rim out of control? He picks up at least a foul or two a game off charges this way. But he's a young player and I'm confident he'll improve his pull-up mid-range game and his awareness.

David West is a smart player, just like Danny is a smart player. However, one we've had the pleasure of watching for six seasons, and the other is the shiny new toy that everyone is perhaps still enjoying a honeymoon period with. Both of these guys are willing passers at about the same rate. They both see the floor equally well. It's just that with Granger, after six years he's received a certain reputation around here and people are fixed in their positions on him.

The truth is Danny was the clear number one option on this team for years, head and shoulders above anyone else. O'Brien's high-paced, three-loving offense might have inflated his stats, but it also put him in a position to fail every single time we needed a clutch bucket at the end of close games. The few successful outcomes were off catch-and-shoot situations like the game in Phoenix where O'Brien had no choice but to run Danny off a screen because there was something like 0.5 left. If it wasn't a TJ Ford "dribble around and shoot a fade-away elbow jumper," it was a Danny ISO, obviously not one of Danny's strengths. After watching him come up short on many of these occasions, it's no wonder fans have less than favorable views of him.

In the Chicago series, he was unquestionably our leader and our best player. Hopefully Paul George can get there one day, but until then Granger is the captain of this ship. The good news is that he finally has a capable crew. And now that he has teammates who can alleviate some of that offensive load, logically his numbers will decline. That's no reason to use this season's statistical decline against him.

I'm thankful the Pacers have had a respectable player who does well on the court and in the community as the face of their franchise these past few seasons. Is it his fault that for many years, out of necessity, he was forced into a role that might have been too big for him? All we can ask for is that players honor their contracts, leave it all on the floor (teeth optional), and represent the franchise in a respectable manner. Danny more than did his part. Instead of picking apart if he dunks enough or not -- personally, I'm glad his game is an "old man's game," he'll last longer for it -- let's enjoy the fact that we don't have to rely on him every night in order to be a competitive team.

Nuntius
02-19-2012, 01:22 AM
Those look like tough shots to you but those are common shots for players like Monta, Kobe, Rose, EJ, Westbrook and Dwade, there is a reason why a lot of those guys are great, BECAUSE THEY MAKE THE TOUGH SHOTS, that's what the Pacers are lacking of, a guy who can create his own shot and can make tough shots.

What you say is true but you DON'T want to live or die by tough shots. That's what your opponents want. There's ALWAYS the chance to take a better shot unless it's only under 1 second on the clock.

Great players can make tough shots but they can also pass out of tough shots to a guy who is open and has a good shot. That's what MJ did at the game 6 of the 1997 Finals. He passed to Steve Kerr. And he nailed it and the Bulls won the title. Could MJ hit the tough shot? Sure, he could. Passing it to the open man was the better choice, though.

Nuntius
02-19-2012, 01:24 AM
Can you think of anyone else in the league that has a size disadvantage like that night in and night out?

Chuck Hayes and DeJuan Blair. Also, Earl Boykins but he has a size disadvantage over everything so I don't think he counts.

LA_Confidential
02-19-2012, 01:27 AM
You haven't accused him of being shot first, that's true.. Several other people have, though. I'll agree that he needs to fix his decision making. He also has some other flaws in his game that he needs to fix (entry passes, fast breaks, pick and roll offense and defense, fighting through screens etc).

But he's trying to improve himself. He is trying to fit the team concept. That's why I don't want to ship him. I sincerely believe that this would ruin the team chemistry.

Regarding on enemies respecting or fearing his game. They don't fear him cause he does not get a whole lot of attempts. However, DC is a great shooter. In every season of his still young career his TS% is over .500 (this is his lowest season at .524). If he actually learned to play the pick and roll he would create a lot of jumper shots for himself and we know that his jumpers are lethal.

See thats the thing, the have-nots heavily outweigh the haves with DC. Even with a guy like Monta;) What he lacks in superior assist statistics, he makes up for it by being damn near unguardable. With the ball in his hands, I believe he's every bit at good as Rose. Rondo might not be a great shooter but he puts his teammates in the best position to score, and if you sag off of his jumper for to long, next thing you know he's got a triple double.

I mean I don't hate the guy (DC), its just that I can see clearly that he's not THE GUY. And until we get said guy (Monta:p), we wont be maximizing our potential. As for chemistry, I certainly don't believe that would be in jeopardy.

LA_Confidential
02-19-2012, 01:50 AM
I would rather have Danny over Monta. Granger could have big scoring nights too if he took as many shots as Ellis takes.

The point is to put Monta with Danny without giving up any significant pieces. What say you to that?


What you say is true but you DON'T want to live or die by tough shots. That's what your opponents want. There's ALWAYS the chance to take a better shot unless it's only under 1 second on the clock.

Great players can make tough shots but they can also pass out of tough shots to a guy who is open and has a good shot. That's what MJ did at the game 6 of the 1997 Finals. He passed to Steve Kerr. And he nailed it and the Bulls won the title. Could MJ hit the tough shot? Sure, he could. Passing it to the open man was the better choice, though.

Im sure you and I can agree that were a better team than GSW,right? Right. Now, with that in mind, what or who rather is the ONLY reason we seem to have issues with them. You guessed it, Monta. As to him being able to pass out of tough spots, dude has increased hiss assist every season he's played.


Chuck Hayes and DeJuan Blair. Also, Earl Boykins but he has a size disadvantage over everything so I don't think he counts.

Maybe if you said Charles Barkley or something, i dont know. I know i'm overshooting but considering how sensational a player Monta is you are incredibly low balling with those comparisons.

Nuntius
02-19-2012, 01:52 AM
I mean I don't hate the guy (DC), its just that I can see clearly that he's not THE GUY. And until we get said guy (Monta:p), we wont be maximizing our potential. As for chemistry, I certainly don't believe that would be in jeopardy.

Sure, Collison is not THE guy. Our team is not modeled around having THE guy. Our team is modeled around having a balanced offense and everyone in our starting lineup being above average.

Sure, Rondo is better than DC but Hibbert is better than Jermaine O' Neal (at this age). Nash is better than DC but Granger is better than Grant Hill (at this age, at least). Dwight Howard is better than Hibbert but DC is better than Jameer Nelson. LeBron James is better than Granger but Hibbert is better than Joel Anthony. John Wall is better than DC but David West is better than Trevor Booker (or Andray Blatche). Dirk Nowitzki is better than David West but Paul George is better than Delonte West.

Do you catch my drift?

Our team does not revolve around having THE guy. If we were to get him, we should change our current structure. We wouldn't go to Hibbert or West a lot. We wouldn't let PG get his shots off as much as we do now. Our offense would be reshaped.

PS: Teams who do not revolve around having THE guy can find their own guy during their run. That's what the Pistons did with Billups. He did not came there as THE guy. He came there as a starter and became THE guy for them.

Asher99
02-19-2012, 02:00 AM
The point is to put Monta with Danny without giving up any significant pieces. What say you to that?

Someone will ask for a trade in less than 3 games. We don't have enough shots to keep everyone fully happy now, let alone if we added the leagues leader in attempts per game the last two years. And how do we even go about landing Monta without giving up significant pieces.

Nuntius
02-19-2012, 02:05 AM
Im sure you and I can agree that were a better team than GSW,right? Right. Now, with that in mind, what or who rather is the ONLY reason we seem to have issues with them. You guessed it, Monta. As to him being able to pass out of tough spots, dude has increased hiss assist every season he's played.

Talent-wise our starters are not much better than theirs. We only have a significant advantage in our SF and C spot. They are better at SG and PG and I quite frankly believe that we're about equal at PF or that they can be a bit better.

However, we are a better TEAM because we have a better plan. You saw our game against them, right? What did they do? They went small and they let their guards decide the game for them. And they do this in every single game. Did it worked in that case? No. Does it work in general? Not that much. Was it working when we did this during JOB? Most of the time it did not. It's the same with the Warriors.

Talent-wise we're about equal with them. But our plan is better than theirs and that's why we're a better team.



Maybe if you said Charles Barkley or something, i dont know. I know i'm overshooting but considering how sensational a player Monta is you are incredibly low balling with those comparisons.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing them with Monta in any way. I'm just saying that they have are in a constant height disadvantage. Nothing more, nothing less.

LA_Confidential
02-19-2012, 02:09 AM
Sure, Collison is not THE guy. Our team is not modeled around having THE guy. Our team is modeled around having a balanced offense and everyone in our starting lineup being above average.

Sure, Rondo is better than DC but Hibbert is better than Jermaine O' Neal (at this age). Nash is better than DC but Granger is better than Grant Hill (at this age, at least). Dwight Howard is better than Hibbert but DC is better than Jameer Nelson. LeBron James is better than Granger but Hibbert is better than Joel Anthony. John Wall is better than DC but David West is better than Trevor Booker (or Andray Blatche). Dirk Nowitzki is better than David West but Paul George is better than Delonte West.

Do you catch my drift?

Our team does not revolve around having THE guy. If we were to get him, we should change our current structure. We wouldn't go to Hibbert or West a lot. We wouldn't let PG get his shots off as much as we do now. Our offense would be reshaped.

PS: Teams who do not revolve around having THE guy can find their own guy during their run. That's what the Pistons did with Billups. He did not came there as THE guy. He came there as a starter and became THE guy for them.

Im thanking your post because it agrees with my post that you quoted. When I say THE GUY, I dont mean lets go get CP3 cuz he's THE GUY or lets get Dwight cuz he's THE GUY. My point is lets get THE GUY that WE KNOW is gonna get it done.

WE KNOW Danny can get it done so he's THE GUY
WE KNOW West can get it done too so he's THE GUY
Roy can get it done most of the time, so imo, he's THE GUY.

I honestly dont feel he need to upgrade those positions because THOSE GUYS get it done. Catch my drift?:D

LA_Confidential
02-19-2012, 02:16 AM
Someone will ask for a trade in less than 3 games. We don't have enough shots to keep everyone fully happy now, let alone if we added the leagues leader in attempts per game the last two years. And how do we even go about landing Monta without giving up significant pieces.

I disagree with you assessment. Monta score out of necessity. They dont have anyone else who can really do it outside of Curry and Lee but the play small ball so they barely go into the post. Monta would open up so may perimeter shot for this team that it'd be ridiculous.

In terms of trade, it'd have to be centered around some combination of DC, Tyler, Picks and cap space. Maybe with a third team involved.

LA_Confidential
02-19-2012, 02:23 AM
Talent-wise our starters are not much better than theirs. We only have a significant advantage in our SF and C spot. They are better at SG and PG and I quite frankly believe that we're about equal at PF or that they can be a bit better.

However, we are a better TEAM because we have a better plan. You saw our game against them, right? What did they do? They went small and they let their guards decide the game for them. And they do this in every single game. Did it worked in that case? No. Does it work in general? Not that much. Was it working when we did this during JOB? Most of the time it did not. It's the same with the Warriors.

Talent-wise we're about equal with them. But our plan is better than theirs and that's why we're a better team.



Don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing them with Monta in any way. I'm just saying that they have are in a constant height disadvantage. Nothing more, nothing less.

So, if we turn their SG into our PG then we'd be way way better than them and a whole lot of other teams. Regardless, my sole focus is on upgrading the point guard spot so that we do get overmatched and outclassed every other night.

As for a plan, I dont think GSW ever had one to begin with.

Nuntius
02-19-2012, 02:45 AM
So, if we turn their SG into our PG then we'd be way way better than them and a whole lot of other teams. Regardless, my sole focus is on upgrading the point guard spot so that we do get overmatched and outclassed every other night.

As for a plan, I dont think GSW ever had one to begin with.

On paper, yes, we would be way way better than them. But would it work out? There's no way to be sure.

The Knicks got better with the Melo trade on paper. Did it worked out? Not as much as it did for Denver.


Im thanking your post because it agrees with my post that you quoted. When I say THE GUY, I dont mean lets go get CP3 cuz he's THE GUY or lets get Dwight cuz he's THE GUY. My point is lets get THE GUY that WE KNOW is gonna get it done.

WE KNOW Danny can get it done so he's THE GUY
WE KNOW West can get it done too so he's THE GUY
Roy can get it done most of the time, so imo, he's THE GUY.

I honestly dont feel he need to upgrade those positions because THOSE GUYS get it done. Catch my drift?:D

I'd say that DC does not take as many shots as West, Roy or Danny in order to be THE guy ;)

That said, people forget that DC only has one more year of experience than PG.

EDIT: Monta can pass out of tough spots but I'm not sure if he willing to pass out of tough spots while the game is on the line.

Asher99
02-19-2012, 02:50 AM
I disagree with you assessment. Monta score out of necessity. They dont have anyone else who can really do it outside of Curry and Lee but the play small ball so they barely go into the post. Monta would open up so may perimeter shot for this team that it'd be ridiculous.

In terms of trade, it'd have to be centered around some combination of DC, Tyler, Picks and cap space. Maybe with a third team involved.

Monta scores because Monta loves to shoot, if they had a team stacked with scorers he's going to get his especially since he can opt out and look to get paid again after next year. I also don't think that package of players would excite them enough to make that move at all, every time you hear his name in trade talks its always with a established player going back to Oakland.

If they trade Monta any time soon its going to be on their terms not on another teams.

graphic-er
02-19-2012, 02:52 AM
You can repeat your line about how "the biggest problem with Danny Granger is that he isn't Lebron James" as many times as you want, which has been plenty already, but it's just as silly and inaccurate now as it was the first time.

People complain that Granger doesn't give the full effort he is capable of on the Defensive end. Basically saying that he isn't a 2 way player. But how many players in the NBA are consistent 2 way players at the level you want Danny Granger to be?? Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, Kobe, Paul Pierce? Hell you got people on here complaining about Loul Deng being a better overall player than Granger! But Deng isn't even the best player on his team! No body is counting on Deng to carry the load.

So the saying is completely true, you all want a guy who can score 20, grab 8 rebounds, dish about 4-5 dimes, and play lock down defense. You all want Lebron James out of Granger. I've heard the same complaints about Granger for the past 3 years. Doesn't make his teammates better, doesn't rebound well for his size, doesn't have a good handle, doesn't defend all the time. If he did all those things competently, he would be Lebron James.

CJ Jones
02-19-2012, 04:44 AM
Hell you got people on here complaining about Loul Deng being a better overall player than Granger! But Deng isn't even the best player on his team! No body is counting on Deng to carry the load.


That's why we need to get Danny his Rose ;).

<a href="http://photobucket.com/images/monta%20ellis" target="_blank"><img src="http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb205/mzdilo/ME.jpg" border="0" alt="Monta Ellis Pictures, Images and Photos"/></a>


If he did all those things competently, he would be Lebron James.

LeBron though? LeBron does all those things exceptionally well. That's probably why he's saying it's a bad comparison.

I think if Danny consistently played the way he was capable of on defense people wouldn't complain nearly as much. No ones asking him to do anything he can't do.

McKeyFan
02-19-2012, 07:58 AM
<a href="http://photobucket.com/images/monta%20ellis" target="_blank"><img src="http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb205/mzdilo/ME.jpg" border="0" alt="Monta Ellis Pictures, Images and Photos"/></a>

I think that picture just changed my mind.

CJ Jones
02-19-2012, 09:20 AM
:D... I thought folks would like that.

He's being judged already anyway...

beast23
02-19-2012, 10:55 AM
People complain that Granger doesn't give the full effort he is capable of on the Defensive end. Basically saying that he isn't a 2 way player. But how many players in the NBA are consistent 2 way players at the level you want Danny Granger to be?? Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, Kobe, Paul Pierce? Hell you got people on here complaining about Loul Deng being a better overall player than Granger! But Deng isn't even the best player on his team! No body is counting on Deng to carry the load.

So the saying is completely true, you all want a guy who can score 20, grab 8 rebounds, dish about 4-5 dimes, and play lock down defense. You all want Lebron James out of Granger. I've heard the same complaints about Granger for the past 3 years. Doesn't make his teammates better, doesn't rebound well for his size, doesn't have a good handle, doesn't defend all the time. If he did all those things competently, he would be Lebron James.
For me, my expectation is different, but it is the same for every player. Give me full focus and full effort on both ends of the floor at all times. If you happen to get tired, that's okay; that's what a strong bench is for. Get 3-4 minutes rest and you are right back in.

vnzla81
02-19-2012, 01:29 PM
People complain that Granger doesn't give the full effort he is capable of on the Defensive end. Basically saying that he isn't a 2 way player. But how many players in the NBA are consistent 2 way players at the level you want Danny Granger to be?? Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, Kobe, Paul Pierce? Hell you got people on here complaining about Loul Deng being a better overall player than Granger! But Deng isn't even the best player on his team! No body is counting on Deng to carry the load.

So the saying is completely true, you all want a guy who can score 20, grab 8 rebounds, dish about 4-5 dimes, and play lock down defense. You all want Lebron James out of Granger. I've heard the same complaints about Granger for the past 3 years. Doesn't make his teammates better, doesn't rebound well for his size, doesn't have a good handle, doesn't defend all the time. If he did all those things competently, he would be Lebron James.

Have you ever thought that people are frustated with him because we know that he can be better than what he is and not just because he is not Lebron James or Kobe? he takes plays off, plays D when he wants too, one day he is consider a DPOY and the next day he looks like he doesn't want anything to do with defense, rebounding or doing the small things.

graphic-er
02-19-2012, 01:52 PM
Have you ever thought that people are frustated with him because we know that he can be better than what he is and not just because he is not Lebron James or Kobe? he takes plays off, plays D when he wants too, one day he is consider a DPOY and the next day he looks like he doesn't want anything to do with defense, rebounding or doing the small things.

But thats just it, maybe he isn't actually capable of being that kind of 2 way player all the time. Cause you know, its really hard to go and score +20 every game and play lockdown D. Guys get really tired. Danny Granger has never been the athletic specimen that Lebron, Wade, or Kobe has.

Can anyone name me a guy who was taken taking around 17th who can play like what you guys are asking for?

beast23
02-19-2012, 01:56 PM
Have you ever thought that people are frustated with him because we know that he can be better than what he is and not just because he is not Lebron James or Kobe? he takes plays off, plays D when he wants too, one day he is consider a DPOY and the next day he looks like he doesn't want anything to do with defense, rebounding or doing the small things.
Yet you are in love with a player like Monta. Can you not see the hypocrisy here?

vnzla81
02-19-2012, 02:08 PM
Yet you are in love with a player like Monta. Can you not see the hypocrisy here?

Monta plays at 110% all the time there is a reason why he even plays with injuries, he is a work horse, his defense needs work(it's better this year) but is not because he doesn't try or take plays off.

beast23
02-19-2012, 02:17 PM
Monta plays at 110% all the time there is a reason why he even plays with injuries, he is a work horse, his defense needs work(it's better this year) but is not because he doesn't try or take plays off.

Then I suppose that personal perception is all that matters. Because we will never agree on this. My perception is that Monta is not all that he can be, and that he is nowhere close to what a "team-oriented" offense would need him to be.

Sookie
02-19-2012, 02:42 PM
Then I suppose that personal perception is all that matters. Because we will never agree on this. My perception is that Monta is not all that he can be, and that he is nowhere close to what a "team-oriented" offense would need him to be.

It's hilarious to me, that the same person who whines and whines about DC's lack of passing, wants Monta as our point guard.

vnzla81
02-19-2012, 02:48 PM
It's hilarious to me, that the same person who whines and whines about DC's lack of passing, wants Monta as our point guard.

That's because Monta is a better passer, I'm starting to think that a big percent of people here have never seen him play.

cdash
02-19-2012, 02:59 PM
That's because Monta is a better passer, I'm starting to think that a big percent of people here have never seen him play.

I'm starting to think you have never seen him play...

Isaac
02-19-2012, 05:25 PM
Monta would be a terrific point guard for a team that had someone like Lamar Odom who can play the point forward role and allow Monta to play off the ball. The Pacers do not have anything like that.

cdash
02-19-2012, 05:28 PM
I don't think Monta is a point guard. I think he is best served as a shooting guard that can handle the ball in spots. He's hard to accurately gauge for me. On the one hand, he's always played on crappy teams and has developed losing habits (inefficient play, taking bad shots, lazy defense, etc.). On the other hand, he has the scoring gene. He can fill it up and go off at any moment. I'd like to see how he would alter his game on a winning team, or if he would alter it. My guess is that he would, but I'm not sure his defense would ever be anything other than mediocre.

vnzla81
02-19-2012, 09:52 PM
Until Granger's next 6-for-20 game.

Then all bets are off.

:whistle:

BlueNGold
02-19-2012, 10:10 PM
0-6 from 3 and 4-15 from the floor? I suppose it's best he has a game like this in a blow out.

For those keeping score, that's 26%...worse then 6-20.

ilive4sports
02-19-2012, 10:27 PM
0-6 from 3 and 4-15 from the floor? I suppose it's best he has a game like this in a blow out.

For those keeping score, that's 26%...worse then 6-20.

He was 5-14 from the floor, which is better than 6-20. Go away til another day.

vnzla81
02-19-2012, 10:29 PM
He was 5-14 from the floor, which is better than 6-20. Go away til another day.

5-21. 26%

ilive4sports
02-19-2012, 10:35 PM
5-21. 26%

He wasn't 5-21 though. 3PA are factored in FGAs. He was 5-14 36%

CJ Jones
02-19-2012, 10:40 PM
I'll never let this thread die... :D


Monta would be a terrific point guard for a team that had someone like Lamar Odom who can play the point forward role and allow Monta to play off the ball. The Pacers do not have anything like that.

I'm interested in why you or p4e think a point forward would help? Don't we expect George to eventually be a better than average ball handler and play maker? Wouldn't that be enough?


It's hilarious to me, that the same person who whines and whines about DC's lack of passing, wants Monta as our point guard.

Their passing ability isn't really comparable. If Monta concentrated on setting his teammates up like DC does he'd average 8+ assists. He's a much better play maker than DC.

We also need a end of quarter/end of game shot taker. In close playoff games you need a dynamic player that can break down defenses. We don't have that player. Paul maybe in 5 years can be but not anytime soon.

You need athletes to beat Miami. We're not going to be able to beat them without more. I prefer a pure pg like everyone else, but I can make an exception for Monta because he can do so much more than just pass.


Then I suppose that personal perception is all that matters. Because we will never agree on this. My perception is that Monta is not all that he can be, and that he is nowhere close to what a "team-oriented" offense would need him to be.

Good point. That's why we like to form our personal perceptions with facts.
While you and others choose to prejudge him on some mythical character problems.

Tell me Beast... why does Monta Ellis need to "show" you anything. Who the hell are you? You got nothing on him but your personal perception.

How about you show us why you think he can't play pg?

How about you show us why you think he's a cancer?

Show us Beast.

Nuntius
02-19-2012, 11:04 PM
He's being judged already anyway...

Not quite as much. I'm just trying to settle down some major fanboyism that certain posters have to him by displaying several not so good statistics about him ;)

vnzla81
02-19-2012, 11:20 PM
He wasn't 5-21 though. 3PA are factored in FGAs. He was 5-14 36%

A OK so going 0-6 from 3 doesn't count.......

croz24
02-19-2012, 11:23 PM
A OK so going 0-6 from 3 doesn't count.......

3 point field goal attempts count towards a players overall field goal attempts. So that 0-6 is apart of the 14 shots Danny put up tonight. Danny took 6 3pters and 8 2pters for a total of 14 shots.

ilive4sports
02-19-2012, 11:25 PM
A OK so going 0-6 from 3 doesn't count.......

Umm how about you read what I posted? 0-6 is factored into the 5-14 already.

Nuntius
02-19-2012, 11:27 PM
Their passing ability isn't really comparable. If Monta concentrated on setting his teammates up like DC does he'd average 8+ assists. He's a much better play maker than DC.


That's true. However, fact is that he does not concentrate on setting his teammates up. Granted, this may be due to his teammates not being good enough scorers in order for him to set them up. But I just don't see the willingness in him to be a play maker.

And that's where perception comes in. Both sides see a guy who can certainly score.

The side that advocates for Monta loves this scoring gene and seeing his ability to pass think (or hope) that he will be willing to be a play maker for a winning team.

The other side sees his ability to score but also notes his bad shot selection and his unwillingness to be a play maker for a losing team (on all but 1 occasion). So, they don't think that he will be willing to be a play maker for a winning team.

Monta has had more dimes than shots taken only once this season. DC did this 5 times this season. Also, DC had equal dimes with shots taken 2 times. Monta never had this in this season and it's quite logical if you take into consideration that it's hard to have 18.9 dimes in a season (that's the amount of shots that Monta is taking per game, by the way).

vnzla81
02-19-2012, 11:27 PM
3 point field goal attempts count towards a players overall field goal attempts. So that 0-6 is apart of the 14 shots Danny put up tonight. Danny took 6 3pters and 8 2pters for a total of 14 shots.

Got it.

Hicks
02-20-2012, 12:11 AM
Don't you guys ever get tired of talking about this?

Nuntius
02-20-2012, 12:14 AM
Don't you guys ever get tired of talking about this?

Nope. I love debating :D

beast23
02-20-2012, 12:33 AM
Tell me Beast... why does Monta Ellis need to "show" you anything. Who the hell are you? You got nothing on him but your personal perception.

How about you show us why you think he can't play pg?

How about you show us why you think he's a cancer?

Show us Beast.
Hmmm. Anytime we get railed into joining the discourse in a thread pertaining to a trading of players, or the acquisition, all of us lend comments based on our position of being a pseudo-GM. So, I guess if you gotta ask, well I suppose I am the effing GM.

Since I have also been around since day 1 of the franchise with attendance of as many home games as anyone on the forum, I also think I have maintained a pretty decent pulse on the values of the community and the typical ticket-purchasing local spectator through the years.

Nuntius latest post has addresses my position quite clearly.

You say that "if Monta concentrated on setting up his teammates..." bla-bla-bla. My evaluation on that, and I repeat based on my perceptions, is that Monta would be totally unwilling to change his makeup, sacrifice primarily looking for his own scoring opportunities, and re-inventing his game to one of a primarily being a playmaker.

Really, I don't see how one can use the words Monta and "playmaker"in the same sentence. If we were to substitute the words "play killer", then I can agree to that.

As to his being a cancer, I can't speak on that; ok ow him no better than you do. But then again, having been in management for a boatload of years, I think those that have worked with me would say that I have decent team building skills. My assessment that Monta would wear thin on his teammates, an particularly Vogel, is based on my perception that whoever is on the floor with Monta would be forced to accept a significantly diminished role in the offense. We would lose to me what to me is the most important aspect of our offense... It would no longer be "equal opportunity" among it's participants.

Although I have always felt that Iverson was a genuinely bad person, and I have no inkling at all that would lead me to conclude that about Monta, that pulse that I believe I have on the ticket-buying fan leads me to conclude that Monta would not be received any better in a Pacer uniform than Iverson would have.

beast23
02-20-2012, 12:36 AM
Don't you guys ever get tired of talking about this?
Perhaps... With my last post, I don't think my position on the Monta subject could be made any clearer. With that, I'm out.

vnzla81
02-20-2012, 12:39 AM
GS has an equal opportunity offense, I don't know were you get all that incorrect info.

HC
02-20-2012, 12:40 AM
Really I like Monta, but I'd rather have Curry.

Nuntius
02-20-2012, 01:10 AM
GS has an equal opportunity offense, I don't know were you get all that incorrect info.

Really?

Let's check GSW's shooting statistics according to ESPN:

Monta Ellis 18.9

David Lee 15.3

Stephen Curry 13.4

Dorell Wright 9.0

Nate Robinson 8.1

Klay Thompson 6.5

Brandon Rush 6.1

All the rest have less than 5 attempts per game.

Now, let's check the Pacers:

Danny Granger 15.6

Roy Hibbert 11.4

David West 11.0

Darren Collison 9.6

Paul George 9.5

Tyler Hansbrough 7.5

George Hill 7.3

All the rest have less than 5 attempts.

So, Warrior's first option (Monta) takes 10.8 attempts more than their 5th option (Nate Robinson). If you go down to their 7th option the differential moves to 12.8

Look at the Pacers now. Our first option (Granger) takes 6.1 attempts more than our 5th option (Paul George). If you go down to our 7th option (George Hill) the differential moves to 8.3.

And that's only taking into consideration the team's offensive option. I'm not talking about the shooting discrepancy in the Warrior's starting line-up. If I did the differential would move to 17.1 (!!!!) as Biedrins (their starting Center) is taking a shocking 1.8 FGAs and is 3rd to last in his own team. But that can be explained as the Warriors like to get small (especially late in the 3rd and in the 4th).

On the contrary, our 5 most used offensive options coincides with our starting line-up. And surprise-surprise our 6th and 7th options are our 6th and 7th men. Makes sense, doesn't it?

And don't get me started on Usage. Monta Ellis is 10th in Hollinger's list with a usage of 28.1. To make a comparison, Kevin Durant has a usage of 28.2.

Links to the stats: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?sort=usageRate&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics%3fsort%3dusageRate (Hollinger's list)

http://espn.go.com/nba/team/stats/_/name/gs/golden-state-warriors (GSW's shooting statistics)

http://espn.go.com/nba/team/stats/_/name/ind/indiana-pacers (Indiana Pacers shooting statistics)

Golden State does not have an equal opportunity offense. They have a shot happy offense. It just happens that Monta is happier than most to shoot.

vnzla81
02-20-2012, 01:17 AM
Yes I quit I'm out :unimpress

CJ Jones
02-20-2012, 06:04 AM
That's true. However, fact is that he does not concentrate on setting his teammates up.

He plays sg. His job is to shoot not pass, yet he still manages to get more apg then our pg. In comparison our best player Danny gets less then 2 apg... I'd hate for someone to take the ball out of his hands.

I can't agree with the notion that Monta doesn't look for his teammates. Maybe in years past I'd have agreed but not this year.

I actually believe having him around would help Danny's numbers go up in ppg and fg% and probably make him an all-star again. We all know that Danny's a better player than Deng. Deng just has someone that can draw attention away from him and get him open looks


Hmmm. Anytime we get railed into joining the discourse in a thread pertaining to a trading of players, or the acquisition, all of us lend comments based on our position of being a pseudo-GM. So, I guess if you gotta ask, well I suppose I am the effing GM.

Since I have also been around since day 1 of the franchise with attendance of as many home games as anyone on the forum, I also think I have maintained a pretty decent pulse on the values of the community and the typical ticket-purchasing local spectator through the years.

Nuntius latest post has addresses my position quite clearly.

You say that "if Monta concentrated on setting up his teammates..." bla-bla-bla. My evaluation on that, and I repeat based on my perceptions, is that Monta would be totally unwilling to change his makeup, sacrifice primarily looking for his own scoring opportunities, and re-inventing his game to one of a primarily being a playmaker.

Really, I don't see how one can use the words Monta and "playmaker"in the same sentence. If we were to substitute the words "play killer", then I can agree to that.

As to his being a cancer, I can't speak on that; ok ow him no better than you do. But then again, having been in management for a boatload of years, I think those that have worked with me would say that I have decent team building skills. My assessment that Monta would wear thin on his teammates, an particularly Vogel, is based on my perception that whoever is on the floor with Monta would be forced to accept a significantly diminished role in the offense. We would lose to me what to me is the most important aspect of our offense... It would no longer be "equal opportunity" among it's participants

Although I have always felt that Iverson was a genuinely bad person, and I have no inkling at all that would lead me to conclude that about Monta, that pulse that I believe I have on the ticket-buying fan leads me to conclude that Monta would not be received any better in a Pacer uniform than Iverson would have.

If we win... they will come. Especially if the product is exciting.

The problem I have with your theory is that it's based on Monta being a selfish malcontent which you have no proof of. So, pretty much all you got is he shoots too much and men can't change...

:50cent:

Nuntius
02-20-2012, 07:59 AM
He plays sg. His job is to shoot not pass, yet he still manages to get more apg then our pg. In comparison our best player Danny gets less then 2 apg... I'd hate for someone to take the ball out of his hands.

I can't agree with the notion that Monta doesn't look for his teammates. Maybe in years past I'd have agreed but not this year.

He plays SG for a reason. That reason is that he likes to shoot and that he is good at it. It's not that the Warriors would not want to play him at PG. They'd love it as he would had a miss-match over most PGs. And they had the reason to play him at PG since Curry was injured. So, who got the PG starting spot when Curry was injured?

Against New York it was Ish Smith. He did good (11 points, 6 rebounds, 4 assists and 2 steals) but he was later waived and he signed with the Orlando Magic. He played for 29 minutes and Charles Jenkins filled in for 4 minutes. Some of the PG minutes in this game were probably played by Monta as Nate Robinson was not picked up yet.

Against Utah it was Charles Jenkins. He only played 9 minutes as Nate Robinson got his spot by playing good and helping them make the comeback. I'm sure that Monta logged some minutes as PG in this game though since Jenkins and Robinson combined for 36 minutes (9+27 respectively) and I doubt that Klay Thompson (played 22 minutes) played PG. By the way, Monta threw a bad pass 17 seconds before the end of the game (it was tied 87-87), Hayward was fouled on the fast break, he split his free throws to give Jazz a 1 point lead and then Monta missed on the buzzer resulting in a Jazz victory.

Against Miami it was again Charles Jenkins starting again (he played 10 minutes). Nate Robinson filled in for 36 minutes as well. The Warriors won, as we all know, mainly because the Heat were horrible at the free line (whereas Nate Robinson, who led the Warriors in scoring with 24, had 14/14 FTs).

Against Detroit it was Charles Jenkins again. This time he played 28 minutes and Nate Robinson played 19.

Against the Nets Charles Jenkins started as well. He only played 11 minutes and Nate Robinson filled in for 26. Apparently, Monta played some PG during that game as well.

What all this say to us? That the Warriors prefer to start Charles Jenkins or Ish Smith (a player who they later waived as they considered themselves covered after signing Nate Robinson) over playing Monta at PG and starting Klay Thompson or Brandon Rush at SG. So, what's the conclusion? They don't view him as a PG. And that's fine. Cause he is NOT a PG. So, why do people expect him to be the PG of our future?

As for the assists part. Good scorers command double team. If you can pass out of a double team you're most likely passing to an open man who has an easy to shot. He'll probably make this shot so you got yourself an assist. That's the reason that Kobe had season in which he averaged 6 assists (04-05) and that his assist average is at 4.7 per game. It's not that he is a willing passer or that he could run the point. Hell, it's not that he likes to share the ball either. He just just is such a dominant scorer that commands double teams and can pass it out of it. Thus, he gets assists. That does not mean that either of them would be best at running them. Could they do it? Yeah, probably. But it would not be what they naturally do nor would it be in the best interests of their teams.

Another point about the assists. The Warriors are a shot happy team. When they take the ball in a good spot, they shoot the ball right away. This results in 2 things. A higher number of 3 point shots taken and a higher number of assists. On the other hand, we are not shooting it the moment we get the ball. We often try to create a better shot and take it closer to the rack. This leads to a higher number of 2 point shots but a lesser number of assists.

Let us look at the statistics now and see if the above theory is verified. Indiana Pacers average 15.5 3 point shots per game, 65.3 2 point shots per game and 17.7 assists per game. Golden State Warriors average 21.0 3 point shots per game, 60.9 2 point shots per game and 22.6 assists per game.

As you can see, they take more 3 point shots, less 2 point shots and have more assists. It just explains the differences our play style. We want to take the highest percentage shot, they want to take a lot of shots. It also explains why we get to the foul line more as we're getting it stronger to the rack. We're getting 25.4 FTAs per game, they're getting 20.5 FTAs per game. All of this, was highlighted when we played them.

As far as Danny's assist numbers are concerned. Danny is a Small Forward. Monta Ellis is a Shooting Guard. Their style of play is different so they're not going to have the same numbers of assists. Compare Danny with a player who resembles his play style. Which brings me to my next point:



I actually believe having him around would help Danny's numbers go up in ppg and fg% and probably make him an all-star again. We all know that Danny's a better player than Deng. Deng just has someone that can draw attention away from him and get him open looks


That's the player I believe that Danny resembles the most. Luol Deng is extremely comparable to Danny. Deng has 2.4 assists as a career average while Danny's is at 2.2. See? Comparable.

I'm not sure which one of the two is better. They both are damn good. I do agree however that Danny would be a lot better if he had a player like Rose with him. I just don't see Monta being that kind of player.

PS: All that said, Monta would make us a lot better on the fast break. And that's an area in which we need to improve on.

Gamble1
02-20-2012, 09:08 AM
Don't you guys ever get tired of talking about this?
Sort of makes me wonder how many people on PD are in college or just out of college with very little repsonsibilities that require their attention.

Nuntius
02-20-2012, 09:27 AM
Sort of makes me wonder how many people on PD are in college or just out of college with very little repsonsibilities that require their attention.

I'm in a university and we're currently on a break so you have a point here :D

BlueNGold
02-20-2012, 10:55 AM
He wasn't 5-21 though. 3PA are factored in FGAs. He was 5-14 36%

Ok, you are correct. Of course, don't forget that 36% lowers his putrid FG% even more.

BlueNGold
02-20-2012, 10:57 AM
Umm how about you read what I posted? 0-6 is factored into the 5-14 already.

I really find this funny. While you are absolutely correct, 0-6 from three against the worst team in the entire league...maybe league history...is nothing to be proud of for your franchise player....:laugh:

Peck
02-20-2012, 11:13 AM
Yes I quit I'm out :unimpress

Liar!!!

You've already thanked two posts since you've been "out".:)

Peck
02-20-2012, 11:26 AM
I really find this funny. While you are absolutely correct, 0-6 from three against the worst team in the entire league...maybe league history...is nothing to be proud of for your franchise player....:laugh:

See that is the problem. You guys consider him our franchise player and we just consider him the best player on our franchise.

Franchise player to me implies Derrick Rose, Koby Bryant, LeBron James, etc.

None of us who are defending Danny will ever tell you he is in that catagory. As I said before it's not his fault the Pacers have never obtained a player better than him. He can only be the player he is.

BTW, I thought he had a very bad game yesterday. Not only did he shoot to many three's he blew a fast break by not getting the ball up court to Collison. Believe me in my mind I was giving him an earfull for that one.

BlueNGold
02-20-2012, 11:31 AM
See that is the problem. You guys consider him our franchise player and we just consider him the best player on our franchise.

Franchise player to me implies Derrick Rose, Koby Bryant, LeBron James, etc.

None of us who are defending Danny will ever tell you he is in that catagory. As I said before it's not his fault the Pacers have never obtained a player better than him. He can only be the player he is.

BTW, I thought he had a very bad game yesterday. Not only did he shoot to many three's he blew a fast break by not getting the ball up court to Collison. Believe me in my mind I was giving him an earfull for that one.

There were people claiming he is better than Reggie Miller. That got me riled up a bit I suppose.

Peck
02-20-2012, 12:12 PM
There were people claiming he is better than Reggie Miller. That got me riled up a bit I suppose.

You really should be happy that you haven't attended a couple of the last party's.:)

Will Galen
02-20-2012, 02:12 PM
0-6 from 3 and 4-15 from the floor? I suppose it's best he has a game like this in a blow out.

For those keeping score, that's 26%...worse then 6-20.

Granger was actually 5-14. He was 3-10 in the first half, (.300) and 2 of 4 (.500) in the second half. And of course he didn't need to play more in the second half.

ilive4sports
02-20-2012, 03:41 PM
I really find this funny. While you are absolutely correct, 0-6 from three against the worst team in the entire league...maybe league history...is nothing to be proud of for your franchise player....:laugh:

Yeah, Danny took too many 3's in a game where we built up a 40 point lead. 0-6 against any team is bad, but because its the Bobcats its worse? Nope, in fact it had even less of an impact on the game because it didn't even matter.

I'm sorry, I'm just not really finding faults in anyone's performance when we win by 35 points with the starters not even playing in the 4th quarter.

ilive4sports
02-20-2012, 03:42 PM
There were people claiming he is better than Reggie Miller. That got me riled up a bit I suppose.

Who was claiming this?

BlueNGold
02-20-2012, 03:56 PM
You really should be happy that you haven't attended a couple of the last party's.:)

See.

That's just crazy talk. Let's see where Danny is in 5 years. He'll be deferring to Paul George.

BlueNGold
02-20-2012, 03:58 PM
See that is the problem. You guys consider him our franchise player and we just consider him the best player on our franchise.

Franchise player to me implies Derrick Rose, Koby Bryant, LeBron James, etc.

None of us who are defending Danny will ever tell you he is in that catagory. As I said before it's not his fault the Pacers have never obtained a player better than him. He can only be the player he is.

BTW, I thought he had a very bad game yesterday. Not only did he shoot to many three's he blew a fast break by not getting the ball up court to Collison. Believe me in my mind I was giving him an earfull for that one.

BTW, I find it mind blowing that, on one hand he's not a franchise player. On the other hand, he's better than Reggie Miller...who is a future HOF'er. Help me understand this.

Peck
02-20-2012, 04:32 PM
BTW, I find it mind blowing that, on one hand he's not a franchise player. On the other hand, he's better than Reggie Miller...who is a future HOF'er. Help me understand this.

Our franchise has had two, count them (2), franchise players in it's history and neither of them played a min. in the NBA.

Roger Brown & Mel Daniels (Some would argue Big Mac & I'll accept that) were the only two players that you could put almost any group of players around them and they were going to win.

Reggie, jut like Danny, happened to be the best player for our franchise. By no means was he ever a franchise player.

Through their first 7 years they have almost identical stats but the one difference is that Danny is a far better rebounder and while many complain about his lazyness on defense on the most lazy of lazy days for him he is still a better defender than Reggie was on almost any given day.

The big difference on defense between the two is that Reggie worked very hard to become a mediocre defender and Danny has shown that when he puts his mind to it he can be a very good defender.

Other than big playoff moments why do you think Reggie is so much better than Danny?

I think they are remarkably similar.

Peck
02-20-2012, 04:33 PM
See.

That's just crazy talk. Let's see where Danny is in 5 years. He'll be deferring to Paul George.

Just like Reggie's 12th year where he was deferring to Jalen Rose?

BRushWithDeath
02-20-2012, 04:39 PM
As someone who grew up in the 90's idolizing 31, the legend of Reggie is a far better player than Reggie ever was. That is completely blasphemous but it's true.

BlueNGold
02-20-2012, 10:31 PM
Just like Reggie's 12th year where he was deferring to Jalen Rose?

Actually, with Danny and Paul, it will be more like a clear changing of the guards similar to what happened when Reggie quickly surpassed Chuck Person. ...and that's coming sooner than 5 years.

BTW, I was a lone voice on this board when Granger came into the league claiming he'd be a great offensive player. Many others thought his strength was defense and he'd be fairly weak on offense. It's not like I haven't backed him because I have...but he's no Reggie Miller. Let's see him play with the game on the line and deliver year after year when the teams are actually competing in the playoffs. Gotta prove it.

Peck
02-20-2012, 10:56 PM
Actually, with Danny and Paul, it will be more like a clear changing of the guards similar to what happened when Reggie quickly surpassed Chuck Person. ...and that's coming sooner than 5 years.

BTW, I was a lone voice on this board when Granger came into the league claiming he'd be a great offensive player. Many others thought his strength was defense and he'd be fairly weak on offense. It's not like I haven't backed him because I have...but he's no Reggie Miller. Let's see him play with the game on the line and deliver year after year when the teams are actually competing in the playoffs. Gotta prove it.

Indeed.

But he has to be given the chance to prove it as well. As I've said this is Danny's seventh season, this is the season Reggie made his name as well.

The seventh season was the first time that Reggie had a team around him that was good and complimented his skill set. It just so happens that this is also the season that Danny finally has good players around him and they compliment his skill set.

I know you watched all of the games, just like I have. Think about it for one small minute, see if you can visualize what I'm talking about here.

What separated Reggie from Jalen?

What separates Danny from Paul?

In many ways Jalen was far more athletic than Reggie, probably more skilled than Reggie and had a better all around game than Reggie.

In many ways Paul is far more athletic than Danny, probably more skilled than Danny and has a better all around game than Danny.

So what actually makes the former more dangerous than the latter?

TheDavisBrothers
02-20-2012, 10:58 PM
Actually, with Danny and Paul, it will be more like a clear changing of the guards similar to what happened when Reggie quickly surpassed Chuck Person. ...and that's coming sooner than 5 years.

BTW, I was a lone voice on this board when Granger came into the league claiming he'd be a great offensive player. Many others thought his strength was defense and he'd be fairly weak on offense. It's not like I haven't backed him because I have...but he's no Reggie Miller. Let's see him play with the game on the line and deliver year after year when the teams are actually competing in the playoffs. Gotta prove it.

I'm not saying that Granger is on Reggie's level or ever will be, but the thing that made Reggie a star and a future HOFer, which is his postseason play, is something that Granger hasn't got the opportunity to really show. I can't really fault him for not making the playoffs with all the crappy teams we've had lately. Another thing if you look at his stats the 2 times he actually made the playoffs he played very well, above his regular season avgs

TheDavisBrothers
02-20-2012, 11:35 PM
Indeed.

But he has to be given the chance to prove it as well. As I've said this is Danny's seventh season, this is the season Reggie made his name as well.

The seventh season was the first time that Reggie had a team around him that was good and complimented his skill set. It just so happens that this is also the season that Danny finally has good players around him and they compliment his skill set.

I know you watched all of the games, just like I have. Think about it for one small minute, see if you can visualize what I'm talking about here.

What separated Reggie from Jalen?

What separates Danny from Paul?

In many ways Jalen was far more athletic than Reggie, probably more skilled than Reggie and had a better all around game than Reggie.

In many ways Paul is far more athletic than Danny, probably more skilled than Danny and has a better all around game than Danny.

So what actually makes the former more dangerous than the latter?

Aggressiveness, will to win, clutch performances...

beast23
02-21-2012, 12:16 AM
...What separated Reggie from Jalen?

What separates Danny from Paul?

In many ways Jalen was far more athletic than Reggie, probably more skilled than Reggie and had a better all around game than Reggie.

In many ways Paul is far more athletic than Danny, probably more skilled than Danny and has a better all around game than Danny.

So what actually makes the former more dangerous than the latter?

Yeah, I know I'm back... But it's your fault. You brought the thread back on focus... So...

A player of somewhat lesser ability is better not because of his talents, but because of a combination of three things: heart, willingness to adapt and what is between his ears.

Jordan, despite his superior athleticism and skills, never would have reached his greatness without being smart enough to analyze his own game and determine what was missing in order to become truly the best h could be. So, after a couple of years of being a volume shooter and risk-taking defender he basically willed himself to put in the time to become an excellent mid-range and perimeter shooter and became much more disciplined defensively. The result? A virtually unstoppable offensive player and a defensive player that could wreak defensive havoc on three positions.

I said it earlier in the thread, Jalen should have been at least Reggie's equal. Under Brown, Reggie bought in to Brown's sermons and became a good (not great, but good) defensive player... And was willing and disciplined to use his new found defensive talents from that point forward nearly every game he played. Jalen, who had offensive abilities near the level of Reggie's, was a significantly better defender than Reggie. Unfortunately, Jalen was not introspective enough to realize what would make him a truly great player. If he had just dedicated himself to playing hard, and disciplined, at both ends of the floor at all times, fans would have been chanting "Jaaa-len" every bit as often as they chanted for Reggie. AND... that would have included me.

I think the verdict is out on Granger. He doesn't openly show his passion and joy for the game like Reggie, and he doesn't do anything flash, so fans, particularly the younger fans, aren't drawn to him like they were for Reggie. But Danny has that same smarts and introspection about his game and the needs of his team. He realized that Roy, DC and George would improve, and also that we had added Hill and would probably also be adding a new PF, so what did he do? He realized that he would have more offensive support and thus re-dedicated himself on defense. What I expect to see from Granger next season would be his recognition that he let his shooting slip this year, and that he needs to improve his handles. Granger has the prerequisites for greatness...willingness, heart and the smarts to know what he needs to improve on. I can't wait to see what kind of player he will be in another year.

I am extremely excited about George. He's already a very good defender, but recognizes that he has a lot to learn to become a great defender. Offensively, I think George realizes that by improving his handles he could become the most unstoppable 6-10+ player in the league. Everything we are told informs how dedicated George is in wanting to improve and become the best player he can be. Now, let's see if he has the heart and internal drive to get it done. It seems to me that the only things that could stop George from becoming a truly great player are injury and George himself.

This is why I'm a liitle concerned about the slam dunk contest. For lack of a lengthier explanation, I don't want success in the contest to get in the way of his focusing on other improvements that he needs to make. What I definitely see in George's game is the same outward expression of joy and passion that Reggie had. Fans, again especially the younger fans, are already drawn to George's talents and love of the game. The will always love Granger, at least the smart ones anyway, but if George is able to grow his game in the ways that we would hope, he has a very good shot of becoming one of the best and most loved Pacers ever.

Jeesh.... What an epiphany. And to think... I hate kumbaya.

Peck
02-21-2012, 04:00 AM
The answer to my question is a little of what both of you have said.

I'll just make it a little more simple.

Both Reggie & Danny are killers.

If you light a fire under either of them they will explode. They both play better when they are mad.

Neither shy's away from a big moment and both will rise to the occasion of the game.

Jalen & Paul I think are better overall players but they don't have that extra gear.

It's not something you can teach or become. I think you are either born with it or your not.

Now is Reggie more of a killer than Danny? Probably. But the spirit is certainly there for Danny.

Frostwolf
02-21-2012, 04:14 AM
peck and beast pretty much have it spot on regarding danny. he's still the best player on our team and a very good performer in the fourth quarter when the game matters. the rest of the team, bar west, look up to him. what more could you want from a guy who we know is not an elite franchise player?

BlueNGold
02-21-2012, 07:58 PM
The answer to my question is a little of what both of you have said.

I'll just make it a little more simple.

Both Reggie & Danny are killers.

If you light a fire under either of them they will explode. They both play better when they are mad.

Neither shy's away from a big moment and both will rise to the occasion of the game.

Jalen & Paul I think are better overall players but they don't have that extra gear.

It's not something you can teach or become. I think you are either born with it or your not.

Now is Reggie more of a killer than Danny? Probably. But the spirit is certainly there for Danny.

My view on this is pretty simple. I see Reggie as being far more difficult to guard than Danny Granger...and that becomes extremely important in playoff games when winning is far more important.

Consider the fact Reggie would literally be flying around the perimeter, catch the ball and shoot it with extreme elevation while fading away from the rim...yet amazingly, even when he was doing that, his FG% and 3pt% were still a lot higher than Danny's.

That skill wins the big games Peck. That's why Reggie > Danny IMHO.

Edit: ok...I said literally flying. I suppose I do remember the Reg with a little more flair than reality. Still, the point stands.