PDA

View Full Version : Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Danny Granger



McKeyFan
03-24-2012, 01:05 PM
Granger's performance around the 2:30 mark last night was a nice encapsulation of his career.

We are down five points. He gets the ball in the corner and lights up a three to get us within two.

Now . . . all we need is a strong defensive stop to tie the game. Instead within the first few seconds Granger tries to poke it away from Grant Hill way out on the perimeter. He clearly fouls him, but, thankfully, the refs don't call it. Not to deter him, Granger reaches in again, this time forcing the refs to call the foul.

We are in the penalty. Grant Hill is a fine free throw shooter. He hits them both, making it a two possession game, once again. And we could never recover from there.

It was such a stupid defensive play that at first I thought Paul George had done it. Surely, this was the work of an inexperienced 21 year old.

No, it was Danny. And these are the kinds of undisciplined, unthinking plays we have watched Granger perform throughout his career. And he mixes them in with superb, clutch shots down the stretch.

We probably have no chance to win without his clutch shots. And we probably lose our chance to win with his poorly timed defensive mistakes down the stretch.

A microcosm of our Danny Granger for YOUR Indiana Pacers. He is good, but he is not perfect, and I guess we have to learn to love him.

BornReady
03-24-2012, 01:07 PM
Danny himself knew it was a bad foul. The announcers were talking about the look on his face after he did that.

HC
03-24-2012, 01:08 PM
Granger's performance around the 2:30 mark last night was a nice encapsulation of his career.

We are down five points. He gets the ball in the corner and lights up a three to get us within two.

Now . . . all we need is a strong defensive stop to tie the game. Instead within the first few seconds Granger tries to poke it away from Grant Hill way out on the perimeter. He clearly fouls him, but, thankfully, the refs don't call it. No to deter him, Granger reaches in again, this time forcing the refs to call the foul.

We are in the penalty. Grant Hill is a fine free throw shooter. He hits them both, making it a two possession game, once again. And we could never recover from there.

It was such a stupid defensive play that at first I thought Paul George had done it. Surely, this was the work of an inexperienced 21 year old.

No, it was Danny. And these are the kinds of undisciplined, unthinking plays we have watched Granger perform throughout his career. And he mixes them in with superb, clutch shots down the stretch.

We probably have no chance to win without his clutch shots. And we probably lose our chance to win with his poorly timed defensive mistakes down the stretch.

A microcosm of our Danny Granger for YOUR Indiana Pacers. He is good, but he is not perfect, and I guess we have to learn to love him.

If you haven't learned to love him by now, then it probably isn't going to happen. You have to take the good with the bad, and that goes for pretty much everything in life.

HC
03-24-2012, 01:11 PM
It's easy to ridicule these things as a fan. In game speed and the heat of the moment Danny had a split second to make a decision, and it could've went either way really. Had he gotten the steal we would be singing his praises.

Dgreenwell3
03-24-2012, 01:23 PM
It's easy to ridicule these things as a fan. In game speed and the heat of the moment Danny had a split second to make a decision, and it could've went either way really. Had he gotten the steal we would be singing his praises.

Exactly! I Swear when you sign up for an internet message board people think they were just hired by the team!

joew8302
03-24-2012, 01:33 PM
Lord, Danny was picked 17 in the draft and signed a very reasonable contract to stay in Indiana of all places when he was in high demand. Danny has been great for Indiana. Is he perfect? No, who is? But please, be happy with what he is.

McKeyFan
03-24-2012, 01:33 PM
It's easy to ridicule these things as a fan. In game speed and the heat of the moment Danny had a split second to make a decision, and it could've went either way really. Had he gotten the steal we would be singing his praises.

Not me. I believe in disciplined, fundamental basketball. So does Indiana, as state (in theory, anyway). You are supposed to exhibit self control down the stretch to win a game, not go for some low odds steal.

While Danny impresses in several ways, on this score he disappoints me. He certainly is no Tim Duncan.

yoadknux
03-24-2012, 01:39 PM
Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Roy Hibbert
In the 4th quarter when the game was on the line Roy had 2 really bad turnovers: A moving/hard screen that knocked Grant Hill to the ground, and another screen that was set out of bounds.
A microcosm of our Roy Hibbert for YOUR Indiana Pacers. He is good, but he is not perfect, and I guess we have to learn to love him.

Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Frank Vogel
Indiana Coach Frank Vogel was upset with the officiating much of the night but lost control in the fourth quarter, picking up a technical with 5:11 remaining, and then another with 1:56 to go to draw an ejection. Phoenix's two free throws as a result of those technicals equaled the final margin.
A microcosm of our Frank Vogel for YOUR Indiana Pacers. He is good, but he is not perfect, and I guess we have to learn to love him.

McKeyFan
03-24-2012, 01:46 PM
Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Roy Hibbert
In the 4th quarter when the game was on the line Roy had 2 really bad turnovers: A moving/hard screen that knocked Grant Hill to the ground, and another screen that was set out of bounds.
A microcosm of our Roy Hibbert for YOUR Indiana Pacers. He is good, but he is not perfect, and I guess we have to learn to love him.

Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Frank Vogel
Indiana Coach Frank Vogel was upset with the officiating much of the night but lost control in the fourth quarter, picking up a technical with 5:11 remaining, and then another with 1:56 to go to draw an ejection. Phoenix's two free throws as a result of those technicals equaled the final margin.
A microcosm of our Frank Vogel for YOUR Indiana Pacers. He is good, but he is not perfect, and I guess we have to learn to love him.
I understand that the idea of not being perfect applies to everyone.

But I don't see Roy and Frank having established a clear pattern of poor decisions based on lack of discipline and fundamentals.

cinotimz
03-24-2012, 01:48 PM
Not me. I believe in disciplined, fundamental basketball. So does Indiana, as state (in theory, anyway). You are supposed to exhibit self control down the stretch to win a game, not go for some low odds steal.

While Danny impresses in several ways, on this score he disappoints me. He certainly is no Tim Duncan.

Well no ****** sherlock. Maybe this is part of the problem. Thinking of him in the same light of Tim Duncan-one of arguably the 10 best players of all time and definitely one of the most cerebral players of all time-is probably going to lead to a lot of disappointment.

At least Danny didnt seriously flirt with another team and almost leave the small town market where he made his mark. Duncan cant say the same.

McKeyFan
03-24-2012, 01:58 PM
Well no ****** sherlock. Maybe this is part of the problem.

Or maybe part of the problem is that a high standard for fundamental basketball ought not to be compromised.

picasso
03-24-2012, 02:06 PM
Where is mention of collisons poor shot selection?
Where is mention of Paul's terrible stupid no look pass TO?
I hate it when he tries to maketge flashy plays. It always results in
TO. And it cost us last night

Derek2k3
03-24-2012, 02:07 PM
Not me. I believe in disciplined, fundamental basketball. So does Indiana, as state (in theory, anyway). You are supposed to exhibit self control down the stretch to win a game, not go for some low odds steal.

While Danny impresses in several ways, on this score he disappoints me. He certainly is no Tim Duncan.

Right. Ok.

Duncan was a #1 overall pick. Danny was a #17.

Duncan makes $21M/year, Danny $12M.

But yeah, lets hold Granger to the same standard as Duncan. You know, the standard that all but maybe 50-60 players OF ALL TIME would fall short of.

Yes, Danny made a bad play. However, he was being aggressive and got caught up in the moment. Yeah, the Pacers should never lose a game, and Granger should never make a mistake, but that happens.

The pessimism is killing me.

Hibbert
03-24-2012, 02:21 PM
Big Roy is only going to get better, if that's not clear enough now. The past two games he has shown flashes of the player he's going to become and when he can play like that on a regular basis every team is going to have a hard time slowing him down and there will be no more talk of Roy not deserving an All-Star spot. He is more important to this team than anyone is and he deserves every penny he will get this summer. His defense has improved so much and in time he will be one of the top bigs in the league.

vnzla81
03-24-2012, 02:40 PM
Yeah I don't know what Mckeyfan is expecting here, Danny is a 17th pick so in a way anything we get from him is gravy here, this is the same thing as the crazy people that are not happy with us just making the playoffs, shame on you McKeyfan for "trashing our players" shame on you!!!! and ............


http://www.swellenterprises.com/ebay/images/family_guy_patch_stewie_hell.jpg

McKeyFan
03-24-2012, 02:54 PM
Right. Ok.

Duncan was a #1 overall pick. Danny was a #17.

Duncan makes $21M/year, Danny $12M.

But yeah, lets hold Granger to the same standard as Duncan. You know, the standard that all but maybe 50-60 players OF ALL TIME would fall short of.

Yes, Danny made a bad play. However, he was being aggressive and got caught up in the moment. Yeah, the Pacers should never lose a game, and Granger should never make a mistake, but that happens.

The pessimism is killing me.

I'm not asking Danny to be 7 feet tall. I'm not asking him to have a 40 inch vertical. I'm not asking him to have an IQ of 140. I'm not asking him to do or be anything he is not capable of.

Every player has the ability and capability of playing fundamental basketball. Some do, some don't. It's a choice, not a false expectation.

Danny could be fundamentally sound, just like Duncan. He chooses not to be.

sportfireman
03-24-2012, 03:01 PM
I really feel like some people start threads for attention.... not DISCUSION. I mean every player can be picked apart, mistakes are made. Pick up, pack up and get ready for a new day. Don't carry negative from one day to the next. We need cameras to follow some of you around and broadcast your screw ups. Danny is no GOD he's HUMAN and will make mistakes, just like the rest of the world.

Edit: we do have a POST game thread for POST game thoughts.

We play the Bucks tonight. Phionex game is in the past, move on. Good day and God bless you all.

Bball
03-24-2012, 03:03 PM
Questioning the basketball IQ of some of these players is pretty easy when you watch them play basketball.

For a player that is supposed to be our main cog Granger really does have some serious decision issues that are just head scratchers. Sure there's the questionable shot selection... but then there's the defensive lapses where he's lost his man for a wide open layup. Or how about when he let Miami have a wide open 3 when that was the only thing that could hurt us?

It's not any one play... It's that you can find several examples of questionable decision making... and they happen time and time again. The Pacers are not good enough to overcome these type of issues. They have to be corrected.

...And it's not only Granger but he's the hardest one to excuse for it due to his age and experience and team rank. If Granger is making boneheaded plays it's harder to fault George or even Collison.

...Although if I see Collision dribbling the ball at the top of the key and someone (usually West) come out to set a pick and then Collison not dribble close enough to rub off his man (or force the defense to switch) one more time I might throw the remote.

If the Pacers plan to win with team basketball then they need to play SMART basketball. Low basketball IQ isn't going to cut it and a team leader like Granger, and a starting PG like Collision simply must play smarter. This is not something you have to take the good with the bad. It's something that if the bad isn't corrected the player won't be on the floor as a Pacer too much longer. It's that bad.

BlueNGold
03-24-2012, 03:10 PM
The frustrating thing I think McKeyFan is describing is that Granger doesn't play smart basketball...or at least has poor judgment. These seem to be things that could be fixed or easy to avoid...which is why it's frustrating. The fact he didn't play defense for a couple years is worse though. At least he's putting some focus on that.

Maybe that's his issue. He lacks focus and discipline...perhaps brought on by a tad of arrogance. It's good though to be confident. Just not overconfident.

TheDavisBrothers
03-24-2012, 03:43 PM
So from this thread I learned that nobody is perfect and Danny Granger is not on par with the greatest PF ever...

Gee I'm so glad I read this, I don't know what I'm gonna do with this wealthy of knowledge!

CJ Jones
03-24-2012, 03:45 PM
Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Roy Hibbert
In the 4th quarter when the game was on the line Roy had 2 really bad turnovers: A moving/hard screen that knocked Grant Hill to the ground, and another screen that was set out of bounds.
A microcosm of our Roy Hibbert for YOUR Indiana Pacers. He is good, but he is not perfect, and I guess we have to learn to love him.

Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Frank Vogel
Indiana Coach Frank Vogel was upset with the officiating much of the night but lost control in the fourth quarter, picking up a technical with 5:11 remaining, and then another with 1:56 to go to draw an ejection. Phoenix's two free throws as a result of those technicals equaled the final margin.
A microcosm of our Frank Vogel for YOUR Indiana Pacers. He is good, but he is not perfect, and I guess we have to learn to love him.

I get the point your trying to make, but I believe the illegal screen violation you're referring to was actually Paul George. Also, the offensive foul by Hibbert was clearly a flop by Grant Hill. Just another one of the turrible calls by the officials.


I'm not asking Danny to be 7 feet tall. I'm not asking him to have a 40 inch vertical. I'm not asking him to have an IQ of 140. I'm not asking him to do or be anything he is not capable of.

Every player has the ability and capability of playing fundamental basketball. Some do, some don't. It's a choice, not a false expectation.

Danny could be fundamentally sound, just like Duncan. He chooses not to be.

I can't figure it out. For a guy as smart as he is to have such low awareness on the court is mind boggling. If he was dumb it'd make more since, and it wouldn't bother me nearly as much.

Dgreenwell3
03-24-2012, 03:51 PM
I literally feel dumber by reading this thread...so Danny isn't on par with Tim freaking duncan...I feel like some of you get your basketball iq from video games, it's not the same people sheesh...Timmy d in his prime is one of the greatest players that ever saw the floor

Bball
03-24-2012, 04:14 PM
I literally feel dumber by reading this thread...so Danny isn't on par with Tim freaking duncan...I feel like some of you get your basketball iq from video games, it's not the same people sheesh...Timmy d in his prime is one of the greatest players that ever saw the floor

I'm not sure if you're missing the point that badly or if I'm missing your point.

Bball
03-24-2012, 04:21 PM
So from this thread I learned that nobody is perfect and Danny Granger is not on par with the greatest PF ever...

Gee I'm so glad I read this, I don't know what I'm gonna do with this wealthy on knowledge!

You could've also learned that for an experienced player and team leader Danny Granger has more than his fair share of inexplicable plays on the basketball court that doesn't fit in with a player in his position. These plays have nothing to do with his height or not being Tim Duncan.

If he was a rookie thrust into his role then you could take the good with the bad and wait for him to mature. But at this point in his career these things just cannot be happening and they need to be fixed... now... if not yesterday.

Bball
03-24-2012, 04:22 PM
Perhaps all that time with Jim O'Brien really did lower Danny Granger's NBA ceiling and thwart his growth as a basketball player.

Perhaps beyond repair... It's starting to appear that way....

Peck
03-24-2012, 04:36 PM
Are we trying to say that Danny cost us the game?

I get what Mckey fan is saying and he is right in saying it, but let's all not go over board and attempt to put last nights loss totally on Danny's shoulders. He deserves some of the blame just like everybody but what some of you are missing from Mckey fans post is that not only did he make a bad mistake on defense but he also brought you back into the game and gave you any chance of winning it at all.

I've said it before & I'll say it again.

It is not Danny Grangers fault that he is the best player on our team. The fact that the Pacers have never brought anyone in who is superior to him is on them, not on him.

David West at best is his equal at times and frankly I'm not even sure he is.

Paul George may very well surpass him in time but that time is not now.

Was it stupid to foul Hill in such a blatant fashion? Yes absolutely.

Would it have even mattered if Danny hadn't hit two big shots to bring us back into the game just prior to that? No, no it wouldn't have.

joew8302
03-24-2012, 04:41 PM
Perhaps all that time with Jim O'Brien really did lower Danny Granger's NBA ceiling and thwart his growth as a basketball player.

Perhaps beyond repair... It's starting to appear that way....

So all that time playing in a perimiter oriented system in which one year Danny was an All Star lowered his ceiling?

Makes perfect sense.

vnzla81
03-24-2012, 04:42 PM
Peck I don't think Mckeyfan is saying that Danny cost us the game, I think he is just saying that Danny sometimes is not an smart player, his BB IQ is a bit low if you will.


Edit: And David West is in no way equal to Danny he is at this moment fighting for the worse second starter and it's between him and DC.

Peck
03-24-2012, 04:48 PM
Peck I don't think Mckeyfan is saying that Danny cost us the game, I think he is just saying that Danny sometimes is not an smart player, his BB IQ is a bit low if you will.

No, I know Mckey fan is not saying it. I'm saying that I was reading others imply that.

I get what Mckey Fan is saying and even thought obviously I like Granger I have to agree with him. There are times that he just does things that make me bang my head. The taunting foul in Toronto for example after he already had a "T" will always make me shake my head.

Just not smart.

Bball
03-24-2012, 04:51 PM
Are we trying to say that Danny cost us the game?

I get what Mckey fan is saying and he is right in saying it, but let's all not go over board and attempt to put last nights loss totally on Danny's shoulders. He deserves some of the blame just like everybody but what some of you are missing from Mckey fans post is that not only did he make a bad mistake on defense but he also brought you back into the game and gave you any chance of winning it at all.

I've said it before & I'll say it again.

It is not Danny Grangers fault that he is the best player on our team. The fact that the Pacers have never brought anyone in who is superior to him is on them, not on him.

David West at best is his equal at times and frankly I'm not even sure he is.

Paul George may very well surpass him in time but that time is not now.

Was it stupid to foul Hill in such a blatant fashion? Yes absolutely.

Would it have even mattered if Danny hadn't hit two big shots to bring us back into the game just prior to that? No, no it wouldn't have.

There's already a postgame thread. While there's a mention of last night's game here I think this thread is more about the season to this point and Danny's role in it.

And it is Danny's fault he's prone to bad basketball plays at times. Who else's fault would it be? He's the one that needs to improve any areas in his game as much as humanly possible and while he cannot grow to 7' or turn himself athletically into something beyond his physical limits, improving his mental play on the court is something ANY player can do. And should do.

McKeyFan
03-24-2012, 05:00 PM
Are we trying to say that Danny cost us the game?


No. You interpreted me correctly, and I appreciate that.

What I AM saying is that these bad decisions—which do NOT have to happen—have indeed cost us games in the past and will continue to do so. This one, probably not, though there is a small percentage chance. Over 82 games it ends up being several games it costs you, and in a playoff series, when every possession counts, if definitely costs you.

Bball made my point pretty well:

It's not any one play... It's that you can find several examples of questionable decision making... and they happen time and time again. The Pacers are not good enough to overcome these type of issues . . . If the Pacers plan to win with team basketball then they need to play SMART basketball.
It's about a culture of good, solid, fundamental basketball. Bball is right: when your main player and your point guard both are faulty in this area, it affects the whole team and whole culture.

I don't fault Granger for not being Tim Duncan. I fault him for not being the best player Danny Granger could be.

Kuq_e_Zi91
03-24-2012, 05:00 PM
Actually, I'd say Danny is pretty smart. He's probably smarter than most of this board.

And it's funny, because I remember early in his career the knock on him was that he thought too much and that he would be better if he played the game more instinctively. I guess things have a way of coming full circle.

McKeyFan
03-24-2012, 05:07 PM
Actually, I'd say Danny is pretty smart. He's probably smarter than most of this board.

And it's funny, because I remember early in his career the knock on him was that he thought too much and that he would be better if he played the game more instinctively. I guess things have a way of coming full circle.

Lance and Tinsley and Stephan Marbury play the game "instinctively." Heck, World B. Free was phenomenal at it.

If that's your thing, fine. Just don't expect to win many games.

jeffg-body
03-24-2012, 05:08 PM
How can you lay it on Danny for losing last night's game? If they would have played better throughout the course of the game they wouldn't be in that position. Danny kept us in the game. Danny is what he is and that is a guy that can consistently score points and plays ok defense. I thought we also looked a little gassed after fighting to win the night before in such a fashion. Hell, if we are gonna blame anyone how about the technicals against coach Vogel because if we didn't give them those foul shot points we would have been tied up. We need to start seeing Danny for what he is and not try to shape into a tier 1 dominant player, but as a very good tier 2 player that would be a heck of a complimentary player to a bonified tier 1 player.

HC
03-24-2012, 05:08 PM
Not me. I believe in disciplined, fundamental basketball. So does Indiana, as state (in theory, anyway). You are supposed to exhibit self control down the stretch to win a game, not go for some low odds steal.

While Danny impresses in several ways, on this score he disappoints me. He certainly is no Tim Duncan.

Danny knew he made a bad play, but how can you fault the effort? Danny wants nothing more than to be the Pacers' franchise player, and sometimes taking chances comes with the territory.

HC
03-24-2012, 05:10 PM
No, I know Mckey fan is not saying it. I'm saying that I was reading others imply that.

I get what Mckey Fan is saying and even thought obviously I like Granger I have to agree with him. There are times that he just does things that make me bang my head. The taunting foul in Toronto for example after he already had a "T" will always make me shake my head.

Just not smart.

I totally agree, but that was completely different than what happened last night.

vnzla81
03-24-2012, 05:19 PM
To me Danny committed that foul because he was trying so hard to be the Hero that he didn't have time to think that if he commits that foul that other player was going to get two freethrows.

Sometimes I think that he wants to be Reggie so bad that he takes Crazy shots, makes crazy plays and forces things for no reason.

2minutes twoa
03-24-2012, 05:26 PM
My God people!! He's not blaming the loss on Danny! He's not saying nobody else on the team made any mistakes! He's just voicing concern about the leader of our team and his questionable decision making in crunch time! Danny is not a superstar in this league, but he is a veteran who should play smarter in tight games.

I happen to think Danny wants so badly to be our superstar and win the game that he presses a little too much.

McKey Fan, this is exactly why I don't start threads based on my opinions. Too many people get their panties in a bunch when they disagree. Thanks for sharing, though :)

Bball
03-24-2012, 05:39 PM
To me last night's foul was just a blip on the radar. Unfortunately, the radar is filled with many blips and if you're watching the radar you'd better take notice when the screen fills with blips....

These continual bad plays by Granger are mounting and not correcting. It's a real problem now, it's not just a concern.

How can you as a coach preach solid basketball if your best player continually makes silly mistakes? It creates a ripple effect because you either have to bite your tongue when the underlings make silly mistakes or you have to run a double standard where you come down on the other players yet allow Danny's mistakes to go unchecked. ...Unless you're willing to challenge Granger's ego and NBA norms and take him to task for these mental errors.

Add to this you have your starting PG making questionable decisions as well. But can you hold him accountable and not Granger?

Of course my answer is you break some eggs to make omlettes and hold them all accountable... but there's no way Vogel does that. A rookie HC doesn't have that kind of gravitas and maybe not even the FO support to go there.

So the next thing on the list is what happens and you start seeing these players traded away.

Granger is frustrating in that he has the tools to be better than this. His problems, more than anything, ARE his fundamental basketball smarts. He could be one of the most rounded players to ever put on the uniform and a valuable piece to any team. But right now, we have several players on the team that could be the current version "Danny Granger".

BlueNGold
03-24-2012, 05:57 PM
...more than his fair share of inexplicable plays on the basketball court that doesn't fit in with a player in his position.

This is the deal. Inexplicable plays normally not done by a player of his caliber. I've seen many good players over the years in the NBA, but I don't think I've seen many as good as Danny...who is this careless at times.

To make this a bit more clear, this is like the A/B student who just about never gets a C, but he gets an F, not just once in a blue moon, but with some regularity.

Sure, his GPA is fine so I don't think anyone here is saying they don't want him on the team. But the F's are simply hard to understand. My theory is that he has a feel-good moment and decides he can be careless next time down the floor. That's not always the scenario, but I've seen it enough times now to see the pattern.

BTW, Granger wouldn't be a perfect basketball if he avoided what should be something easy to avoid like this. Not saying I don't think highly of his skills for those with thin skin...

TheDavisBrothers
03-24-2012, 06:53 PM
I understand what is trying to be said here, but 1 thing really bothers me. This discussion pretty much boils down to fundamentals and while I can understand some of the points being made, I think it's rediculous to throw Tim Duncan's name in there. Here's why: when it comes to fundamentals Tim Duncan is the best of the best. Using Timmy against Danny would be like hearing a musicians ( even a very famous ones) song and saying, well he's no Bethoven!

Dgreenwell3
03-24-2012, 07:09 PM
I'm not sure if you're missing the point that badly or if I'm missing your point.

No you are the one who doesn't understand...alot of people get an Internet message board types get a username and automatically start this hypothesis that they ate smarter than those out there...let me give you guys some reality. No one on here has a higher basketball IQ than Danny granger. You can say I am wrong but I am right, no one is smarter in basketball on here than granger. Watch something on TV and yell is one thing, do it in real life is something entirely different.

BlueNGold
03-24-2012, 07:12 PM
I understand what is trying to be said here, but 1 thing really bothers me. This discussion pretty much boils down to fundamentals and while I can understand some of the points being made, I think it's rediculous to throw Tim Duncan's name in there. Here's why: when it comes to fundamentals Tim Duncan is the best of the best. Using Timmy against Danny would be like hearing a musicians ( even a very famous ones) song and saying, well he's no Bethoven!

I agree the Tim Duncan comment could have been left out. I also would say that, while Danny isn't great at the fundamentals of the game (e.g. passing, dribbling, etc.)....in my opinion, fundamentals are not the issue here.

The issue is one of judgment or discipline. Being careless at times. But I don't think it's a big issue. I think it takes away from his game some though. It's basically the opposite of the way Chauncey Billups plays the game. It amounts to an unnecessary choice...often right after he's done something good. That's my problem with it.

Still, I think when we have an important game or series I bet Granger dials some of that down. But I do think it's part of his personality coming out...his confidence and aggressiveness which can also be a good thing....yet in other ways it's like a bad habit.

BlueNGold
03-24-2012, 07:21 PM
While I am frustrated by what I see as careless, rookie-type mistakes that could easily be corrected with some discipline....I bet if we had another "star" on this team we'd have something else to criticize.

So, I suppose I'll take the good with the bad...as always. The good news is, the good is a lot more prevalent than the bad. Yet, let's not pretend this could not pretty easily be corrected.

Dgreenwell3
03-24-2012, 07:29 PM
While I am frustrated by what I see as careless, rookie-type mistakes that could easily be corrected with some discipline....I bet if we had another "star" on this team we'd have something else to criticize.

So, I suppose I'll take the good with the bad...as always. The good news is, the good is a lot more prevalent than the bad. Yet, let's not pretend this could not pretty easily be corrected.

Ding ding...that's kind of my point, I think there are some bad things but if we sit back and review every player...you will find mistakes...it happens.

Bball
03-24-2012, 08:05 PM
No you are the one who doesn't understand...alot of people get an Internet message board types get a username and automatically start this hypothesis that they ate smarter than those out there...let me give you guys some reality. No one on here has a higher basketball IQ than Danny granger. You can say I am wrong but I am right, no one is smarter in basketball on here than granger. Watch something on TV and yell is one thing, do it in real life is something entirely different.

Well... I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong so I won't do that.

Granger makes mental mistakes in games that are more frequent than a player of his stature should be making.

It doesn't matter if Granger is smarter in basketball than everyone on Pacers Digest or not because that doesn't excuse him making dumb mental errors in games (which he does). In fact, it would make it even worse that he continues to make these mistakes.

You're saying he has a higher basketball IQ than anyone here (and there are some smart basketball people who post here) so does that mean we aren't seeing him make sloppy judgments? Are we just too dense to not see the genius in these alleged bad plays we're pointing out?

Get real... Granger is too good of a player to be making these mental errors and he needs to sort it out.

Banta
03-24-2012, 08:21 PM
Not having read all the replies in this thread, I'll just say that every player on the court in every game makes mistakes. Every player, every game.

The games move fast and some times instinct moves a player's body before he has time to critically analyze his actions. Its not as simple as saying that a player needs to be more disciplined in his game. They move on instinct out there so much that some times you're going to see them do things that can be second guessed or critiqued as undisciplined. Often, what you're really seeing is the speed of the game and the necessity of split second decisions.

And let's not forget that there are other players out there doing their best to goad the opposition into making the wrong play.

Dgreenwell3
03-24-2012, 08:39 PM
Well... I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong so I won't do that.

Granger makes mental mistakes in games that are more frequent than a player of his stature should be making.

It doesn't matter if Granger is smarter in basketball than everyone on Pacers Digest or not because that doesn't excuse him making dumb mental errors in games (which he does). In fact, it would make it even worse that he continues to make these mistakes.

You're saying he has a higher basketball IQ than anyone here (and there are some smart basketball people who post here) so does that mean we aren't seeing him make sloppy judgments? Are we just too dense to not see the genius in these alleged bad plays we're pointing out?

Get real... Granger is too good of a player to be making these mental errors and he needs to sort it out.

You are absolutely right, a player makes one mistake and he clearly has no IQ...does he make mistakes? Yes, so does every player in the NBA, it's funny that the same things Danny does are things Kobe gets praised for. You need to look at things objectively, not just in the eyes of one game.

McKeyFan
03-24-2012, 09:13 PM
McKey Fan, this is exactly why I don't start threads based on my opinions. Too many people get their panties in a bunch when they disagree. Thanks for sharing, though :)

No problem.

No one is above criticism. Including that bastion of basketball IQ, Danny Granger.

BillS
03-24-2012, 09:31 PM
I think at a certain point the focus on poking the ball or getting a deflection/steal over defending the play on the floor is a system issue, not a player issue. Everyone seems to be focusing on the ball instead of anything else.

Sent from my cm_tenderloin using Tapatalk

vapacersfan
03-24-2012, 09:31 PM
I have never met or hung-out with Danny Granger, but I have hunt out with a few posters at PD forum gathering events, and I have read PD since I found it in 2004, and I can say with 100% certainity that there are posters here who have a VERY HIGH basketball IQ.

Could they coach/work at the pro (or even college) level? I do not know, but with the right contacts I would not be surprised at all. My HS had a coach who coached a bunch of greats, Grant Hill included, and the man refused to leave coaching at the HS level. He probably couldnt figure out how to use a computer, but I bet he has a higher BBALL IQ then some players I have seen, both in college and in the NBA.

Sorry for the rant, but I think this notion that "You post on a message board so you can not have a negative opinion on a NBA player" is as crazy as the polar opposite "You post on a message board so you know everything about everything and have no problem telling people how you are right and they are wrong"

Just my .02

Anthem
03-24-2012, 09:41 PM
Peck I don't think Mckeyfan is saying that Danny cost us the game, I think he is just saying that Danny sometimes is not an smart player, his BB IQ is a bit low if you will.
I completely agree that Danny sometimes makes stupid plays. But who in the NBA doesn't? I mean, Mike Dunleavy was universally heralded at a player with a super-high basketball IQ, but he made as many boneheaded plays as Danny, if not more.

I'd never argue that Danny's never done something stupid (although I'd argue that LeBron's three was a product of Danny following the defensive system and doesn't constitute a boneheaded move), but I will say that I don't see any players in the NBA that don't ever make stupid plays. Am I just watching the wrong games?

McKeyFan
03-24-2012, 09:53 PM
I completely agree that Danny sometimes makes stupid plays. But who in the NBA doesn't? I mean, Mike Dunleavy was universally heralded at a player with a super-high basketball IQ, but he made as many boneheaded plays as Danny, if not more.

I'd never argue that Danny's never done something stupid (although I'd argue that LeBron's three was a product of Danny following the defensive system and doesn't constitute a boneheaded move), but I will say that I don't see any players in the NBA that don't ever make stupid plays. Am I just watching the wrong games?

I think some of us are seeing a pattern with Danny that is more regular than the inevitable mistake every player makes every once in a while.

vnzla81
03-24-2012, 10:01 PM
I think some of us are seeing a pattern with Danny that is more regular than the inevitable mistake every player makes every once in a while.

Plus Danny is not Dunleavy or some scrub at the end of the bench, he is the so call "franchise player" and the guy that makes the most money on the team.

ilive4sports
03-24-2012, 10:31 PM
I think some of us are seeing a pattern with Danny that is more regular than the inevitable mistake every player makes every once in a while.

I think you need to watch other NBA players more closely. We are way too critical of this team in general, the grass is always greener on the other side as we don't see other teams nearly as much as we see the Pacers.

Hibbert
03-24-2012, 11:45 PM
Should this thread be changed from Danny Granger to Paul George? Including tonight's game Paul George has 84 TO's and Danny Granger has 82 TO's on the year. PG has played 1,396 minutes this year while Danny has played 1,494 minutes. Danny has played exactly 98 minutes more than PG yet it's PG who has more TO's. With that in mind, PG is also 10th in the entire NBA in fouls with 139, Danny has 101 playing more minutes. If anything with the fouls and TO's it looks like PG is making way more mistakes and stupid decisions than our beloved Danny Granger.

BlueNGold
03-24-2012, 11:47 PM
I think you need to watch other NBA players more closely. We are way too critical of this team in general, the grass is always greener on the other side as we don't see other teams nearly as much as we see the Pacers.

I think most of us have spent more than enough time watching lots of players closely...many closer than Granger...to make these types of judgments. Do we criticize too much? IDK, but I do think it's quite subjective whether there has or has not been too much criticism.

In any event, the people criticizing Granger in this thread do know what they are talking about. Let's separate whether people criticize too much and whether that criticism is accurate. I think it's pretty much on target.

Anthem
03-24-2012, 11:53 PM
Plus Danny is not Dunleavy or some scrub at the end of the bench, he is the so call "franchise player" and the guy that makes the most money on the team.
While Dunleavy was here, he was at worst our second-best player. Hardly "some scrub." And he was a player widely acclaimed for his bball iq.

I think the only consistent pattern I've seen this year is people comparing Danny to superstars and being frustrated with Danny for not being one.

Every player has flaws. Doesn't mean people are wrong for enjoying Danny's (and this team's) play.

BlueNGold
03-24-2012, 11:55 PM
Should this thread be changed from Danny Granger to Paul George? Including tonight's game Paul George has 84 TO's and Danny Granger has 82 TO's on the year. PG has played 1,396 minutes this year while Danny has played 1,494 minutes. Danny has played exactly 98 minutes more than PG yet it's PG who has more TO's. With that in mind, PG is also 10th in the entire NBA in fouls with 139, Danny has 101 playing more minutes. If anything with the fouls and TO's it looks like PG is making way more mistakes and stupid decisions than our beloved Danny Granger.

Sorry, but you cannot compare a veteran in the prime of his career to a 21 year old second year player. Paul has a much higher basketball IQ, sees the floor better, better instincts on defense, better quickness, more athleticism, just more talent. Granger has met his potential IMO. Paul George hasn't even scratched it. If he reaches his potential, Paul will be the best Pacer ever. So...no, the title should remain the same because the shoe fits.

Banta
03-24-2012, 11:57 PM
I have never met or hung-out with Danny Granger, but I have hunt out with a few posters at PD forum gathering events, and I have read PD since I found it in 2004, and I can say with 100% certainity that there are posters here who have a VERY HIGH basketball IQ.

Could they coach/work at the pro (or even college) level? I do not know, but with the right contacts I would not be surprised at all. My HS had a coach who coached a bunch of greats, Grant Hill included, and the man refused to leave coaching at the HS level. He probably couldnt figure out how to use a computer, but I bet he has a higher BBALL IQ then some players I have seen, both in college and in the NBA.

Sorry for the rant, but I think this notion that "You post on a message board so you can not have a negative opinion on a NBA player" is as crazy as the polar opposite "You post on a message board so you know everything about everything and have no problem telling people how you are right and they are wrong"

Just my .02


I think you are not really making a valid comparison between fans who understand the game and players who participate in it. The analyst has the luxury of watching from the sofa or the stands, which offers undeniable advantages regarding assessing the action. Further, there is an enormous difference between observing the action and participating in it. For example, I can observe that Obama sucks at his job as POTUS, but that does not mean I could perform as well or better at that job.

When Danny starts shooting 35 times per game or commiting an excessive number of turnovers or routinely fouling out or clearly playing outside the offense or showing no hustle, then come back to this conversation. Or, I suppose, when someone here makes an NBA roster...:D

ilive4sports
03-25-2012, 01:09 AM
I think most of us have spent more than enough time watching lots of players closely...many closer than Granger...to make these types of judgments. Do we criticize too much? IDK, but I do think it's quite subjective whether there has or has not been too much criticism.

In any event, the people criticizing Granger in this thread do know what they are talking about. Let's separate whether people criticize too much and whether that criticism is accurate. I think it's pretty much on target.

I'm not saying the criticisms are wrong. It was a stupid foul. But where are the threads criticizing the other players? There is certainly a "grass is always greener" effect when it comes to non Pacers. We don't watch them enough to notice these normal mistakes Danny makes. Every NBA player makes these mistakes. LeBron, the best player in the league, makes some of the most bonehead decision I have ever seen in clutch situations. As does Kobe.

These mistakes are much more common than some people are making it seem.

Nuntius
03-25-2012, 02:34 AM
Granger makes mental mistakes in games that are more frequent than a player of his stature should be making.


So, ultimately it comes down to Granger's status. How good we think that Granger is?

Personally, I always compared Granger to Luol Deng as a player and Andre Iguodala as his importance on his teams. And I've seen both of those players make those mistakes as well.

So, Danny does not standout negatively in this department, imo.

McKeyFan
03-25-2012, 07:14 AM
So, ultimately it comes down to Granger's status. How good we think that Granger is?

Personally, I always compared Granger to Luol Deng as a player and Andre Iguodala as his importance on his teams. And I've seen both of those players make those mistakes as well.

So, Danny does not standout negatively in this department, imo.

I disagree with both of those comparisons. They don't make as many stupid decisions. Igoudala is more fundamental. Just ask Coach K.

Anthem
03-25-2012, 09:03 AM
I disagree with both of those comparisons. They don't make as many stupid decisions. Igoudala is more fundamental. Just ask Coach K.
A couple years ago, I really thought Deng made too many stupid mistakes. That's when he was the best player on the team. Now that Rose carries that responsibility, Deng's a more efficient player.

I haven't watched Iggy enough to say for certain one way or the other. But the Coach K thing is a non-sequitur... Granger's playing a totally different style of ball than he was back then.

BlueNGold
03-25-2012, 09:23 AM
I think this comes down to one simple idea. Many of us want Danny to be more like Chauncey Billups in terms of discipline and control of his actions on the floor and less like Gilbert Arenas. I am not comparing Danny to either of these players. Just their decision-making.

...and no, I don't think Danny is the only or the worst #1 player in the league in terms of carelessness.

cinotimz
03-25-2012, 10:11 AM
This whole argument is just flawed.

First of all, anyone that thinks AI or Billups is anymore fundamentally sound than Danny simply hasnt watched either one of them play much or is having very selective memory. If you want to look at Danny or AI or Billups or any of the players in the league under a microscope, you will find that in the end they all make what turn out to be stupid plays.

This is the NBA. You have some of the worlds best athletes almost on a nightly basis defying fundamentals and what should be the simple play and making plays that are simply amazing and eye-dropping....thats what we want and what we come to expect. If you want fundamentals watch Princeton play basketball.

Fundamentally sound? Of course...ultimately boring? yes, after a while.

Nerves, the human element and unbelievable physical talent is what draws us to the NBA. And while the movie Hoosiers is obviously a feel good story, its definitely not what the NBA is about.

Its easy to second guess and criticize when players dont get the desired end result. But theyre not robots and therein lays a great deal of the attraction. There must be a sense of the unknowing. There must be the human element where guys will try things they shouldnt and may or may not fail. They have to be affected by nerves and we need to see them choke at times....again...its part of the attraction and makes us appreciate the greatness that much more when they succeed.

Danny isnt perfect...none of the NBA players are....how often times is Lebron criticized and hes the best player on the planet. Does he do stupid things? of course...when they fail theyre stupid. Fans dont spend the money on the NBA to watch them play safe, fundamentally sound basketball....they just dont....anyone saying otherwise wouldnt really be an NBA fan. They would prefer college and some high school ball much better.

Dgreenwell3
03-25-2012, 10:28 AM
What gets me is the blatant extremism used here...saying he either has to be completely disciplined or he is Gilbert arenas...so silly people it's like saying you are either in the tea party or a large liberal.

ksuttonjr76
03-25-2012, 11:39 AM
This was basically a troll thread. ALL NBA players make mistakes. Granger is NOT a superstar, so we need to stop holding him to the standards of one.

Dgreenwell3
03-25-2012, 11:42 AM
This was basically a troll thread. ALL NBA players make mistakes. Granger is NOT a superstar, so we need to stop holding him to the standards of one.

Exactly, following the logic of this thread, every player in the NBA who isn't Tim Duncan is Gilbert Arenas or Javale McGee

ilive4sports
03-26-2012, 06:15 AM
I disagree with both of those comparisons. They don't make as many stupid decisions. Igoudala is more fundamental. Just ask Coach K.

I'm sorry, but thats just not true. I have seen Iggy make bonehead play after bonehead play at the end of games. Usually its on the offensive end. He really isn't a guy you want to go to at the end of games.

And Deng benefits so much from playing next to one of the best players in the league. He just gets put into a great spot. He is able to focus fully on defense while Rose does his thing on offense. Granger doesn't have that luxury.

And about Billups, that guy was great his first 6 years in the league right? I mean he only played on 4 teams in that time span after being the number 3 pick in the draft. Oh wait, he was pretty much an after thought until he got a team that he really gelled with.

Fact is Danny has won us more games than he has lost us. And I don't think its even close in that regard.

Nuntius
03-26-2012, 06:39 AM
I disagree with both of those comparisons. They don't make as many stupid decisions. Igoudala is more fundamental. Just ask Coach K.

Coach K is not the gospel. I clearly remember him in the 2006 WC in Saitama extensively benching Howard (who only played 10 or 12 minutes) in order to have Elton Brand or Chris Bosh at the Center position against Greece which simply resulted in Schortsianitis dominating the point because Brand and Bosh could not guard a 345 lbs guy. Really, how he could think that guys who are below or close to 250 lbs and primarily play as PFs guard a truck who weights 345 lbs?

I know that Coach K is a great coach but let's not pretend that he is infallible.

pacers74
03-26-2012, 07:53 AM
You take the good.
You take the bad.
You take em all.
And there you have, the facts of life, the facts of life.

McKeyFan
03-26-2012, 09:37 AM
Just ask Coach K.

As they say in the country, "A hit dog howls."

vapacersfan
03-26-2012, 10:10 AM
I think you are not really making a valid comparison between fans who understand the game and players who participate in it. The analyst has the luxury of watching from the sofa or the stands, which offers undeniable advantages regarding assessing the action. Further, there is an enormous difference between observing the action and participating in it. For example, I can observe that Obama sucks at his job as POTUS, but that does not mean I could perform as well or better at that job.

When Danny starts shooting 35 times per game or commiting an excessive number of turnovers or routinely fouling out or clearly playing outside the offense or showing no hustle, then come back to this conversation. Or, I suppose, when someone here makes an NBA roster...:D

Using that logic, my coaches/front office personal who coached future NBA players should not have an opinion because they did not play/work at the NBA level?

While I agree we have the luxory or watching and criticizing without being in that situation, I disagree that people should stay quiet unless they make an NBA roster. Sorry, I dont agree with that at all.

Working/playing pro in any field certainilly helps you relate, and it is a skill set that I do not think should be ignored, but I do not think you can reate "genius" to athlete simply because they play, or "idiot" to fan because they do have never played D1 or NBA ball.

As I said in my last post, I think this notion that "You post on a message board so you can not have a negative opinion on a NBA player" is as crazy as the polar opposite "You post on a message board so you know everything about everything and have no problem telling people how you are right and they are wrong".

vapacersfan
03-26-2012, 10:13 AM
A couple years ago, I really thought Deng made too many stupid mistakes. That's when he was the best player on the team. Now that Rose carries that responsibility, Deng's a more efficient player.

I haven't watched Iggy enough to say for certain one way or the other. But the Coach K thing is a non-sequitur... Granger's playing a totally different style of ball than he was back then.

A key point was made here. Some of this is IMO pressure Danny puts on himself, and that could be taken care of with talent added around him (where he can play batman)

FWIW, I still love Danny. Good with the bad

Bball
03-26-2012, 10:58 AM
Let me see if I have this straight...
We're allowed to wonder why the team can't sell tickets in bushel baskets.
We're allowed to question why certain teams don't just at times have our number but can steamroll us.
We're allowed to wonder what happened to smashmouth basketball, wonder why our offense doesn't flow, and wonder why our winning percentage has suffered.
And we're allowed to speculate about our chances to do anything from win in the first round to actually win the first round.

....But don't be caught suggesting Danny Granger has any areas in his game that need to improve. Afterall, he's not Tim Duncan. ...Therefore he is beyond question.

Any problems the team has simply cannot be Granger's fault nor can he share in those problems.

Got it...

For those of us who like Granger the fact remains if he doesn't improve these areas quickly he won't be in a Pacers uniform for the long term. If Granger's mindset is the same as some of you defending him, then he's as good as gone. George will get the opportunity to be the team's #1 player without Granger around and someone like George Hill will move up into the starting lineup. ...Depending on how trade scenarios play out of course.

This team isn't going to build thru the draft so this team needs to mix and match assets and find the right blend not only to win on the court but also to move the needle with the general public. Players that hit their ceilings too soon cannot get automatic free passes into subsequent seasons.

daschysta
03-26-2012, 11:04 AM
I think this comes down to one simple idea. Many of us want Danny to be more like Chauncey Billups in terms of discipline and control of his actions on the floor and less like Gilbert Arenas. I am not comparing Danny to either of these players. Just their decision-making.

...and no, I don't think Danny is the only or the worst #1 player in the league in terms of carelessness.

Billups is WAY more in love with the whole pull up shot out of nowhere that kills momentum than Danny is or ever has been. He hits lots of them, but that doesn't make them good decisions.

daschysta
03-26-2012, 11:05 AM
A couple years ago, I really thought Deng made too many stupid mistakes. That's when he was the best player on the team. Now that Rose carries that responsibility, Deng's a more efficient player.

I haven't watched Iggy enough to say for certain one way or the other. But the Coach K thing is a non-sequitur... Granger's playing a totally different style of ball than he was back then.

Deng is shooting .408 this season, he really hasn't been very much more efficient than Danny at all, and that's WITH the even more stacked team than ours. Over his last 10 he's been shooting the ball more and averaging .353 from the field.

Danny is getting way too much hate, yes he isn't perfect, but what some ignore is that he HAS improved in lots of areas. His post game for instance, is far more developed, effective and advanced than he's shown before in the pros. Ditto to driving to the basket, he's actually been very effective attacking the basket, typically scoring or getting a foul. He's also been a very good defensive player this year, most of the times he loses his man you can see the reason, which is typically being forced to rotate to the middle because DC couldn't keep his man out of the paint leaving Danny's guy open in the corner for a wide open shot.

He has improved in most areas this season, the only thing he's been worse at is his jumpshot, which we KNOW he has, .

Since the All-Star break Danny has averaged 17.6 ppg 5 rpg on 44 percent from the field and .333 from 3 and getting to the line around 5 times a game (more recently), those offensive numbers, along with his improved defense, which he's continued to display this year are perfectly acceptable to me over the course of the season, especially since that is still taking into account his 3 point shooting slump, which a shooter of Danny's calibre is sure to emerge from. Once his 3 point shooting gets back to it's typical 38-40 percent clip he'll stabilize around 20 ppg, which is more than enough given the offensive options we have on the floor now.

It's just a bit ironic to me that those that gave Danny all kinds of criticism for his me-first offensive show for years are now still really laying it on him now that he's become much closer to what they said they always wanted him to be, albeit with a slumping jumpshot that imo is sure to correct itself.

Naptown_Seth
03-26-2012, 11:50 AM
I literally feel dumber by reading this thread...so Danny isn't on par with Tim freaking duncan...I feel like some of you get your basketball iq from video games, it's not the same people sheesh...Timmy d in his prime is one of the greatest players that ever saw the floor
The problem isn't from reading this thread. I've never seen such a massive amount of misunderstanding of a basic comparison in my life. It's a epic S.A.T. fail.


IN THE AREA OF GAME AWARENESS/BASKETBALL IQ (and not in any other way compared)

Tim Duncan = great/classic example of how fundamentals make the game easier
Danny Granger = moderate at best, and given his actual IQ this is considered a sub-par level

Duncan also happens to be gifted with height and athletic ability. Paired with his game IQ this results in a GOAT caliber player.

Danny has a good but not great set of wing skills. If he pairs them with the IQ he could and should have all the time then he'd be back on the all-star team.


NONE OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH WHERE HE WAS DRAFTED. This isn't about "what a dud this pick was" because we are well into a NEW VET CONTRACT that was signed by an ALL-STAR SF, not a #17 pick.

He raised the bar on his standards and got PAID FOR IT TOO, it's not some one-way street where he gets nothing but we hold him to tougher expectations. He's a captain and paid well. He was put on Team USA and was an all-star. That's a lot of praise that you don't give to #17 picks either.


So evaluating his output as a #17 pick, yes, he's been great, far above normal #17 expectations (ditto Roy).


But evaluating what he could be or what he needs to do to maintain that new standard he's had problems. He could be Reggie-lite but often his own decisions make the game harder for himself and his team.

We see what he CAN DO and he's often great, both in skill and effort. So he gets evaluated at that level, at the CAPTAIN'S level, not the scrub #17 hoping to stick with his 5th team level.




By the way, I'm not a singer but I can still hear if someone is singing way off key.* Criticism doesn't require the ability to do it yourself, only the ability to observe and compare in an intelligent way.






* not a shot at Danny

graphic-er
03-26-2012, 11:51 AM
This was basically a troll thread. ALL NBA players make mistakes. Granger is NOT a superstar, so we need to stop holding him to the standards of one.

What's Danny Granger's biggest problem??
You all know what it is....

Naptown_Seth
03-26-2012, 11:58 AM
I completely agree that Danny sometimes makes stupid plays. But who in the NBA doesn't? I mean, Mike Dunleavy was universally heralded at a player with a super-high basketball IQ, but he made as many boneheaded plays as Danny, if not more.
Personally I thought Dun's IQ was vastly overrated due to his athletic style of play.

Plenty of unforced TOs, tons of defensive lapses. He works a good 2 man game on offense and passes pretty well, but I think George Hill plays a much smarter all-around game than either of them.

Hill is far more likely to fail trying to do what needs to be done than he is to fail because he wasn't doing the right thing.



And this isn't just IQ, we know there is a lot of ego involved with NBA ball. The smart guys learn how to tune that out or use it against opponents.

Naptown_Seth
03-26-2012, 12:03 PM
I think you need to watch other NBA players more closely. We are way too critical of this team in general, the grass is always greener on the other side as we don't see other teams nearly as much as we see the Pacers.
Well I will agree with this too. It is informative to go out of your way to watch some other teams play, and not just the big games. Give one of these other games the full attention you'd give a Pacers game. Watch some of those individuals as though they were some of your favorite players.



Of course this is also why I'm melting down about game like WSH and PHX because the Pacers are talented enough to not struggle with those teams in those situations, but they did anyway.

These guys are so close to something special if only they could stay on the same page for larger portions of the game.

Sookie
03-26-2012, 12:14 PM
Personally I thought Dun's IQ was vastly overrated due to his athletic style of play.

Plenty of unforced TOs, tons of defensive lapses. He works a good 2 man game on offense and passes pretty well, but I think George Hill plays a much smarter all-around game than either of them.

Hill is far more likely to fail trying to do what needs to be done than he is to fail because he wasn't doing the right thing.



And this isn't just IQ, we know there is a lot of ego involved with NBA ball. The smart guys learn how to tune that out or use it against opponents.

Personally, my opinion of Dun was that he was a bright basketball player. But would often do things out of frustration from lack of intelligence of teammates or coaches.

I'm not sure whether it was in a similar vain to Kobe passing up every shot to make a point. Or Dun's frustration overcoming him. But it doesn't make sense that he could show an incredible awareness and intelligence for the game in play after play, and then make a randomly stupid play.

Washington and Phoenix. I've said this a million times. These guys are young. They are talented, but they are young and inexperienced. That's going to cause close games that shouldn't be close, losses that shouldn't happen, and...some wins that shouldn't happen either.

If you watch a lot of college ball, that isn't like a Kentucky team (young talented players come for one year and leave), you've seen this progression a lot. I've mentioned the Uconn women a lot here. The best players have graduated. Their best players are a sophomore, a freshman, and a junior that can't score. (BTW: Kelly Faris, and Indiana girl. If you're a basketball junkie, you HAVE to watch her play. She can't shoot. But she's a perfect basketball player in every other way. ) And they did stuff this season like lose to an unranked opponent at home. Uconn Women hadn't lost at home for four years and they hadn't lost to an unranked opponent in about 20. But..they also may win the title this year too.

Talent needs to grow up before it can be consistent, and win games it should win. And our most important piece is Paul George, whose a raw 21 year old. When he gets to a point where he is consistent, we'll be consistent.

Naptown_Seth
03-26-2012, 12:16 PM
A couple years ago, I really thought Deng made too many stupid mistakes. That's when he was the best player on the team. Now that Rose carries that responsibility, Deng's a more efficient player.

I haven't watched Iggy enough to say for certain one way or the other. But the Coach K thing is a non-sequitur... Granger's playing a totally different style of ball than he was back then.
I agree.

But I do think Iggy took a step forward by improving his fundamental approach to the game and dialing back his role. This is allowed by the roster changes of course, but I think Iggy has been far better at blending back in with a very similar Sixers roster than Danny has.

But to be fair to Danny the change and effort to get back on track ARE THERE. You'd have to be nuts to not see the dramatic improvement in defensive effort.


I think the team has an issue of too many guys about equal in importance all trying to decide who gets to be the boss, and not comfortable/friendly enough with each other to not need a boss in order to work together.

I mean Hill and West just got here. I'd really like to see this group stay together for 2 more years at least (ie, resign West) because their talent balance could really create something difficult to stop.


And no offense to Vogel, but it's Doug Collins. That helps a lot too.

Naptown_Seth
03-26-2012, 12:24 PM
Personally, my opinion of Dun was that he was a bright basketball player. But would often do things out of frustration from lack of intelligence of teammates or coaches.

I'm not sure whether it was in a similar vain to Kobe passing up every shot to make a point. Or Dun's frustration overcoming him.
Well he often turned the ball over in the backcourt with a bad pass. Maybe not as often as Troy, but way more than he should have for it to be a strength.

But it could have been lack of concentration or interest due to the situation I suppose. Still there are players that overcome that and those that succumb to it. So I guess we are putting emotional IQ on the table too. Unfortunately Pacers fans know all too well what the low end of that scale looks like.




BTW everyone, the thread title does say that Danny is BELOVED, and I'm pretty certain McKeyFan wasn't being sarcastic.

vnzla81
03-26-2012, 01:16 PM
Welcome back to the dark side Seth, just so you know next time you won't be allowed back ;)

Nuntius
03-26-2012, 01:29 PM
Let me see if I have this straight...
We're allowed to wonder why the team can't sell tickets in bushel baskets.
We're allowed to question why certain teams don't just at times have our number but can steamroll us.
We're allowed to wonder what happened to smashmouth basketball, wonder why our offense doesn't flow, and wonder why our winning percentage has suffered.
And we're allowed to speculate about our chances to do anything from win in the first round to actually win the first round.

....But don't be caught suggesting Danny Granger has any areas in his game that need to improve. Afterall, he's not Tim Duncan. ...Therefore he is beyond question.

Any problems the team has simply cannot be Granger's fault nor can he share in those problems.

Got it...


Apparently, you didn't get it.

You're allowed to criticize anything and anyone. This is a message board. You can speak and express yourself freely.

But don't expect everyone else to agree.

As a wise man said once "Opinions are like ********. Everybody got one". People are bound to disagree.

PS: Especially, when a comment seems overreacting or knee-jerk-ish.

Since86
03-26-2012, 01:47 PM
It's pretty easy to have a high basketball IQ when you're sitting in the comfort of your living room. When you step on the court, and all the other variables like stress and fatigue come into play, it starts seperating the men from the boys.

You find me a player that doesn't make poor basketball decisions during a game, and I'll show you a liar.

McKeyFan
03-26-2012, 02:01 PM
And no offense to Vogel, but it's Doug Collins. That helps a lot too.

Important point.

I'm a huge Vogel fan, but the jury is still out regarding how well he teaches the fundamentals and how willing he is to enforce them. Is he a Larry Brown (the reason I became a Pacer fan in the first place) or is he more like his father figure?

He's hasn't resembled JOB in just about anything else, so here's hoping the same is true on this score.

This thread is about Danny. It is about Vogel—what kind of culture of discipline, smarts, and fundamentals he is pushing for. It's about JOB—just how much damage was caused on this score by Vogel's predecessor.

It's about Larry Bird's commitment to this area. Quite frankly, I'm not sure he's as good as Walsh on this score (though he is better on many other fronts).

Dgreenwell3
03-26-2012, 02:10 PM
The problem isn't from reading this thread. I've never seen such a massive amount of misunderstanding of a basic comparison in my life. It's a epic S.A.T. fail.


IN THE AREA OF GAME AWARENESS/BASKETBALL IQ (and not in any other way compared)

Tim Duncan = great/classic example of how fundamentals make the game easier
Danny Granger = moderate at best, and given his actual IQ this is considered a sub-par level

Duncan also happens to be gifted with height and athletic ability. Paired with his game IQ this results in a GOAT caliber player.

Danny has a good but not great set of wing skills. If he pairs them with the IQ he could and should have all the time then he'd be back on the all-star team.


NONE OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH WHERE HE WAS DRAFTED. This isn't about "what a dud this pick was" because we are well into a NEW VET CONTRACT that was signed by an ALL-STAR SF, not a #17 pick.

He raised the bar on his standards and got PAID FOR IT TOO, it's not some one-way street where he gets nothing but we hold him to tougher expectations. He's a captain and paid well. He was put on Team USA and was an all-star. That's a lot of praise that you don't give to #17 picks either.


So evaluating his output as a #17 pick, yes, he's been great, far above normal #17 expectations (ditto Roy).


But evaluating what he could be or what he needs to do to maintain that new standard he's had problems. He could be Reggie-lite but often his own decisions make the game harder for himself and his team.

We see what he CAN DO and he's often great, both in skill and effort. So he gets evaluated at that level, at the CAPTAIN'S level, not the scrub #17 hoping to stick with his 5th team level.




By the way, I'm not a singer but I can still hear if someone is singing way off key.* Criticism doesn't require the ability to do it yourself, only the ability to observe and compare in an intelligent way.






* not a shot at Danny

The problem is I don't think anyone on here considers danny what is likely the highest IQ, best fundamental basketball player of all time (yeah that's Tim Duncan) ...it's like saying I am no Josh groban, I can sing but I am no Josh groban. Well no ****. Trying to compare tim to Danny is just not a good comparison, good luck McKeyfan finding another Tim Duncan, who is unquestionably one of the greatest basketball players of all time.
Ps. I never said a word about dannys draft status.

Nuntius
03-26-2012, 02:24 PM
Ps. I never said a word about dannys draft status.

That was me :D

McKeyFan
03-26-2012, 03:58 PM
The problem is I don't think anyone on here considers danny what is likely the highest IQ, best fundamental basketball player of all time (yeah that's Tim Duncan) ...it's like saying I am no Josh groban, I can sing but I am no Josh groban. Well no ****. Trying to compare tim to Danny is just not a good comparison, good luck McKeyfan finding another Tim Duncan, who is unquestionably one of the greatest basketball players of all time.
Ps. I never said a word about dannys draft status.

I don't think you've been following the conversation too well.

We can compare Danny and Duncan when it comes to decision making. It is okay. It is appropriate. It is helpful. It is important.

Making good decisions is a choice. It is a matter of focus and discipline. It is not a matter of talent. It is a meritocracy, not an aristocracy.

Danny is a good to great player. He would be even better if he made good decisions more consistently, like Tim Duncan does.

Tim Duncan is a greatest of all time player. On talent alone (not that quick, not that athletic) he might be a superstar, but not one of the greatest ever. However, because he focuses, chooses to make good decisions, exercises discipline and delays immediate gratification and makes the more prudent choices, he is one of the greatest of all time.

None of us are judged on the gifts we are given. We are judged on how effectively we maximize them. Tim Duncan gets at A+

Danny's not terrible. He's about a B. In 49 states that's just fine.

But this is Indiana.

.
.
.

Dgreenwell3
03-26-2012, 04:06 PM
I don't think you've been following the conversation too well.

We can compare Danny and Duncan when it comes to decision making. It is okay. It is appropriate. It is helpful. It is important.

Making good decisions is a choice. It is a matter of focus and discipline. It is not a matter of talent. It is a meritocracy, not an aristocracy.

Danny is a good to great player. He would be even better if he made good decisions more consistently, like Tim Duncan does.

Tim Duncan is a greatest of all time player. On talent alone (not that quick, not that athletic) he might be a superstar, but not one of the greatest ever. However, because he focuses, chooses to make good decisions, exercises discipline and delays immediate gratification and makes the more prudent choices, he is one of the greatest of all times.

None of us are judged on the gifts we are given. We are judged on how effectively we maximize them. Tim Duncan gets at A+

Danny's not terrible. He's about a B. In 49 states that's just fine, but this is Indiana.

The classic "because you disagree with my opinion you must be misinformed" tactic. I find it funny Danny is the one targeted here yet you could probably find for starters more lacking in this area than he on the pacers. Hate to point out the truth but Indiana would have been one of the worst teams in the league the past few years without Danny.

McKeyFan
03-26-2012, 04:11 PM
The classic "because you disagree with my opinion you must be misinformed" tactic. I find it funny Danny is the one targeted here yet you could probably find for starters more lacking in this area than he on the pacers. Hate to point out the truth but Indiana would have been one of the worst teams in the league the past few years without Danny.

Do I disagree or am I misinformed?

BillS
03-26-2012, 04:20 PM
Hate to point out the truth but Indiana would have been one of the worst teams in the league the past few years without Danny.

I thought we pretty much WERE one of the worst teams in the league prior to last year. 10th worst in 2009-2010.

Dgreenwell3
03-26-2012, 04:29 PM
I thought we pretty much WERE one of the worst teams in the league prior to last year. 10th worst in 2009-2010.

When I say that I mean laughably bad...we could still compete at Least those years...you take Danny off that 2009 2010 team and what are we? The 2012 bobcats is the correct answer.

Dgreenwell3
03-26-2012, 04:36 PM
Do I disagree or am I misinformed?

I am sure we disagree, which there is nothing wrong with but I had to say something.

Since86
03-26-2012, 04:44 PM
I thought we pretty much WERE one of the worst teams in the league prior to last year. 10th worst in 2009-2010.

If people scoff at the idea that the Pacers were one of the best teams, when they had the 4th-5th best record, then I don't know why people would think that 10th worst would makethem "one of the worst."

Being 10th worst, although bad, isn't in the same category as the bottom 3. That's a tier all by itself.

BillS
03-26-2012, 04:49 PM
If people scoff at the idea that the Pacers were one of the best teams, when they had the 4th-5th best record, then I don't know why people would think that 10th worst would make them "one of the worst."

You have to ask that question around here? Heck, sometimes I think 8th place in the playoffs last year made the Pacers "one of the worst" teams in the NBA to some folks on PD, because, after all, it is the Leastern Conference.

ilive4sports
03-26-2012, 05:56 PM
I agree.

But I do think Iggy took a step forward by improving his fundamental approach to the game and dialing back his role. This is allowed by the roster changes of course, but I think Iggy has been far better at blending back in with a very similar Sixers roster than Danny has.

But to be fair to Danny the change and effort to get back on track ARE THERE. You'd have to be nuts to not see the dramatic improvement in defensive effort.


I think the team has an issue of too many guys about equal in importance all trying to decide who gets to be the boss, and not comfortable/friendly enough with each other to not need a boss in order to work together.

I mean Hill and West just got here. I'd really like to see this group stay together for 2 more years at least (ie, resign West) because their talent balance could really create something difficult to stop.


And no offense to Vogel, but it's Doug Collins. That helps a lot too.
I'm glad you posted this after you previous post because I was going to bring up the same thing.

This team is drastically different from what it was a year ago. This roster has played 47 games together (excluding injuries and such). A different coach, and two huge pieces being added (West and Hill). Not to mention we have seen Big Roy and Paul George make some huge steps in their play. This team still doesn't know how to play together really. In this shortened season, pretty much no training camp, we really are at a disadvantage. Games are where they are learning.

This team has the 8th best record in the NBA. How many of us thought we would have the 8th best record in the NBA this season? Hell we are only 2 games back of the 5th best record in the league. This season has been an incredible step forward for this team and I think a lot of us forget that at times.

BlueNGold
03-26-2012, 06:37 PM
What gets me is the blatant extremism used here...saying he either has to be completely disciplined or he is Gilbert arenas...so silly people it's like saying you are either in the tea party or a large liberal.

Nobody is saying Danny is supposed to be completely disciplined. More disciplined would lead to improved play. JMHO.

BlueNGold
03-26-2012, 06:42 PM
Billups is WAY more in love with the whole pull up shot out of nowhere that kills momentum than Danny is or ever has been. He hits lots of them, but that doesn't make them good decisions.

I would have to disagree with you on that. If he's hitting a good percentage, let it fly.

I find it funny that some posters claim we shouldn't compare Danny to such an "in control" player like Billups...yet you say he's out of control. In any event, I also disagree that Billups makes foolish decisions nearly as often as Granger and it's not limited to shot selection.

Anthem
03-26-2012, 07:40 PM
Nobody is saying Danny is supposed to be completely disciplined. More disciplined would lead to improved play. JMHO.
Sure, I think everybody would agree with that statement for every player in the NBA.

Anthem
03-26-2012, 07:42 PM
BTW everyone, the thread title does say that Danny is BELOVED, and I'm pretty certain McKeyFan wasn't being sarcastic.
Could be. I took it as "He's beloved by others but I think he's less than brilliant and I want more people to agree with me."

Anthem
03-26-2012, 07:45 PM
Personally, my opinion of Dun was that he was a bright basketball player. But would often do things out of frustration from lack of intelligence of teammates or coaches.
I'm sure his frustration with coaches could lead to throwing a behind-the-back pass that goes out of bounds.

I think he's a player that's learned a few tricks and looks cerebral but I don't think his fundamentals are much better than Danny's. The two players are about on par in that department.

Anthem
03-26-2012, 07:48 PM
....But don't be caught suggesting Danny Granger has any areas in his game that need to improve.


As I said in my last post, I think this notion that "You post on a message board so you can not have a negative opinion on a NBA player"
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Do you two really think that's a reasonable summation of the viewpoint of those you're arguing against?

vapacersfan
03-26-2012, 08:12 PM
I feel like I am taking crazy pills.

I never commented on the issue itself (well I guess in a round-about way I did) but I did comment of people who had the attitude that "you cannot cut a player down because you do not play in the NBA". Yes, I do think (and if you read through this whole thread I am confident you will find evince as well) that this attitude does exist.

I have used this reference for many issues today, so I will end my day using it. I am not on a "pro" or "con" side, I am simply on the side of seeing the Indiana Pacer succeed.

McKeyFan
03-26-2012, 08:22 PM
Could be. I took it as "He's beloved by others but I think he's less than brilliant and I want more people to agree with me."
I'm not that concerned about how many people agree with me. (You'd be crazy to start a thread around here if that was the case.) I care about the culture of Indiana Pacer basketball and I actually believe that the banter here and other places can make a small difference toward improving it.

I meant "beloved" in a true but weary sense. For an analogy, I loved Artest. I could have started a thread entitled, "Our beloved but less than sane Ron Artest."

(**Please DO NOT over-react and say I am comparing Danny's issues to Ron's. I am merely using an analogy of good/positive and love/hate.)

If Ron or Danny were just decent players who did boneheaded things, we could simply write them off. Instead, they also do brilliant things. And THAT is what makes it so d@mn frustrating. They drive you crazy. But you gotta love 'em.

BlueNGold
03-26-2012, 08:35 PM
For those who are defending Danny from this criticism, do you want his game to stay the same or improve? Never discuss things that might Danny might work on? Is that how it works here?

BTW, most of us acknowledging this weakness like Danny and most aspects of his game. We just want him to get better...

Anthem
03-26-2012, 09:40 PM
For those who are defending Danny from this criticism, do you want his game to stay the same or improve? Never discuss things that might Danny might work on? Is that how it works here?

BTW, most of us acknowledging this weakness like Danny and most aspects of his game. We just want him to get better...
I think that Danny's capable of consistently playing like he played tonight.

I was actually going to suggest that you write a post full of praise for Danny, and I'd write a post full of criticism. A big part of what I'd planned to say is that Danny frequently loses focus. When he really wants to put the hurt on somebody, he's capable. He played fantastic offense tonight against LeBron & Battier (arguably the best SF defensive tandem in the league) but played great defense as well.

So my top criticism of Danny would be "Why don't we see this Danny Granger every night?"

LoneGranger33
03-26-2012, 09:42 PM
If Granger had made his last shot (tonight against the Heat), he'd have finally hit 40% on the season.

I've been monitoring this situation for over a week now. He'll get there. We'll all get there.

BlueNGold
03-26-2012, 10:46 PM
I think that Danny's capable of consistently playing like he played tonight.

I was actually going to suggest that you write a post full of praise for Danny, and I'd write a post full of criticism. A big part of what I'd planned to say is that Danny frequently loses focus. When he really wants to put the hurt on somebody, he's capable. He played fantastic offense tonight against LeBron & Battier (arguably the best SF defensive tandem in the league) but played great defense as well.

So my top criticism of Danny would be "Why don't we see this Danny Granger every night?"

He was stud tonight. I'll even throw Collison a bone.

Also, I will give Danny this much. I think he is more focused in the more important games...like against Chicago in the playoffs last year. He was a rock. I have confidence he will be solid in all playoff games which is comforting.

Trader Joe
03-26-2012, 11:05 PM
I haven't read this whole thread, but I just wanted to say, Mike Dunleavy was one of the dumbest players we ever had this team. How he ever got the "smart basketball" player tag I will never know. He was very good moving without the ball and would occassionally make the brilliant pass, but for the most part he was a train wreck at decision making.

Pacersalltheway10
03-26-2012, 11:32 PM
He was stud tonight. I'll even throw Collison a bone.

Also, I will give Danny this much. I think he is more focused in the more important games...like against Chicago in the playoffs last year. He was a rock. I have confidence he will be solid in all playoff games which is comforting.

Just a bone? Give him a steak.

Frostwolf
03-26-2012, 11:55 PM
in the words of our michael grady:

DAN-NY!

GRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANGEEEEEERRRRRRR!!! !

Nuntius
03-27-2012, 11:22 AM
For those who are defending Danny from this criticism, do you want his game to stay the same or improve? Never discuss things that might Danny might work on? Is that how it works here?


Of course, we want him to improve. And he will. Do you want to know why? Because Danny's game will remain untouched by time. So, he'll only get better through experience and maturity.

Do you remember Vince Carter in his prime? Wasn't he a monster? Where is he now? 6th man at best? His game simply did not pass the test of time. Steve Nash's game passed that test. Danny Granger's game is likely to pass that test as well. Wade's game is likely not to pass that test.

People underestimate players who do not live off athleticism. However, it's that mold of players that pass the test of time and continue to play on a high level after a certain age.

About the knocks on Granger now. I don't have an issue with people criticizing Danny when he deserves some criticism. However, I do have a problem when the criticism is not fair.

And I'll explain. I see Granger in the same light I see Andre Iguodala and Luol Deng. I don't see him in the same light I see Dirk Nowitzki, Manu Ginobili or Reggie Miller.

So, I'll hold him accountable when he underperforms compared to AI and LD. I won't hold him accountable when he underperforms compared to Dirk, Manu or Reggie.

As I said earlier in this thread, all the criticism or lack of it stems from how good we think that Danny Granger is.