PDA

View Full Version : Maybe Granger should go to the bench when healthy



Pages : [1] 2

Banta
02-06-2013, 03:55 PM
Minimizes impact to his knees and maintains the chemistry of the starting unit that is pretty much freaking amazing at this particular time.

The thought of Granger being our gun off the bench practically gives me a stiffy. What a b!tchslap that is for playoff opponents.

Frankly I think it is in Granger's best interest to embrace the 6th man role, if only for the remainder of this season. He risks damage to his reputation if he derails the train by coming back into a starter role. And, then, possibly demotion if its ugly. So why not preserve your rep and take the 6th man role, kill it and build up your trade value?

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 04:05 PM
Granger will start. No way around that.

How would he "derail the train" by coming back and starting? That's his spot.

Kid Minneapolis
02-06-2013, 04:08 PM
I think he should return off the bench for a bit and see how it goes, for two reasons: 1) to make sure the chemistry is returned to normalcy, and 2) to allow him to ease back from his time off and get back into game shape. It should be a natural transition not a forced transition.

BobbyMac
02-06-2013, 04:09 PM
I expect him to start, and play restricted minutes. I expect during playoffs that Danny, Lance and Paul will all play 30+ minutes. More going to the one who is playing better that night.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 04:12 PM
Granger will start. No way around that.

How would he "derail the train" by coming back and starting? That's his spot.

His spot was the starting SF. It isn't his spot anymore. And yes, it absolutely matters, especially if Danny has lost a step defensively.

Using him as a 6th man is probably in the best interest of the team, but I doubt granger would be happy with it.

ilive4sports
02-06-2013, 04:12 PM
3 games of scoring 100+ points and its time to bench Danny....

I think Danny fits in much better with the starters than Lance imo. Lance is best with the ball in his hands, creating for himself and others. Danny is much better without the ball and a better shooter. I think Lance is exactly what the bench needs honestly. I just hope Ian can catch his passes.

Steagles
02-06-2013, 04:15 PM
I see Danny playing like 2 weeks from the bench progressively getting more minutes, starting with 5 or so and/or garbage minutes up to the usual 30.


Sent from #PacerNation using Tapatalk

PGisthefuture
02-06-2013, 04:17 PM
I would like to test out using Danny as our sixth man type of player, but I doubt Vogel will try it. I don't know how Danny would take it either.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 04:17 PM
3 games of scoring 100+ points and its time to bench Danny....

I think Danny fits in much better with the starters than Lance imo. Lance is best with the ball in his hands, creating for himself and others. Danny is much better without the ball and a better shooter. I think Lance is exactly what the bench needs honestly. I just hope Ian can catch his passes.

Offensively, I agree. Defensively? Totally different story. Stephenson has been very successful on that end as the starting 2-guard, and the Pacers are a defensive team.

BPump33
02-06-2013, 04:23 PM
Hasn't Vogel already said that Danny would start or am I making that up?

Sookie
02-06-2013, 04:26 PM
Vogel said Granger will come off the bench at first, then he'll move to the starters.

It's the right decision.

Granger helps the team offensively and defensively. And Lance will help the bench on both ends.

Eleazar
02-06-2013, 04:28 PM
Hasn't Vogel already said that Danny would start or am I making that up?

He said something along the lines that he will come off the bench at first, and the plan is to eventually have him start once he is in game shape. Of course plans can always change if it turns out bringing him in off the bench works extremely well. At the beginning the of year the plan was to have Green start for Granger, and look how that turned out. In sports plans can never be set in stone, they can only be general guidelines.

BPump33
02-06-2013, 04:28 PM
Vogel said Granger will come off the bench at first, then he'll move to the starters.

It's the right decision.

Granger helps the team offensively and defensively. And Lance will help the bench on both ends.

I'm not saying I don't believe you (because I do), but do you remember where you got that? I can't find anything.

Eleazar
02-06-2013, 04:29 PM
Vogel said Granger will come off the bench at first, then he'll move to the starters.

It's the right decision.

Granger helps the team offensively and defensively. And Lance will help the bench on both ends.

So would Granger off the bench. It is just a matter of what works better. We can't say at this point, but it would be stupid to completely rule out the possibility of using Granger in the 6th man role.

BPump33
02-06-2013, 04:37 PM
This is the closest thing I found:

Granger (knee) is likely to come off the bench, playing reduced
Posted 18 days 9 hrs 59 mins ago via rotowire.com

Granger (knee) is likely to come off the bench, playing reduced minutes, when he eventually returns to active duty for Indiana, the Indianapolis Star reports. 'I don't imagine he's going to be able to play 38 minutes right away,' Indiana head coach Frank Vogel said. 'If there's a time frame where he's limited minutes-wise, we'll consider bringing him off the bench short term, but if we do so it'll only be short term.' [...]

http://www.fantasysp.com/player/nba/Danny_Granger/2643268/granger-knee-is-likely-to-come-off-the-bench-playing-reduced

J7F
02-06-2013, 04:38 PM
Vogel said Granger will come off the bench at first, then he'll move to the starters.

It's the right decision.

Granger helps the team offensively and defensively. And Lance will help the bench on both ends.

I guess I just trust Danny to be the main scoring option for a unit more than I do Lance... Known vs. Unknown I guess...

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 04:57 PM
Why wouldn't you want a guy that is playing like Lance... wait, ACTUALLY LANCE coming off the bench to help where we really need help?

If you guys say Danny is this decrepit old piece of dirt then hey, wouldn't he do much better in a unit that is actually producing?

And if Lance throws a fit because his starting spot was taken away to a player vastly superior to him, then he really didn't deserve the spot in the first place.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 05:03 PM
Why wouldn't you want a guy that is playing like Lance... wait, ACTUALLY LANCE coming off the bench to help where we really need help?

If you guys say Danny is this decrepid old piece of dirt then hey, wouldn't he do much better in a unit that is actually producing?

As the medical saying goes, "do no harm."

I'm looking at it from a different perspective. Your best player's effectiveness is maximized at SF. Likewise, Stephenson's effectiveness has been maximized starting at SG and doing the little things defensively.

It theoretically isn't about Danny. It's about disturbing a starting 5 that's carrying the team and providing for a bench unit that's badly needed perimeter shooting all season.

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 05:04 PM
But you know for a fact when all the rust is gone, Danny is going to be the starting 3 again. Like I said, there is no way around it.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 05:07 PM
But you know for a fact when all the rust is gone, Danny is going to be the starting 3 again. Like I said, there is no way around it.

Maybe he will. I just question the logic of displacing your best player to accommodate your former best player. And no, starting george at the two is not a negligible difference.

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 05:10 PM
Maybe he will. I just question the logic of displacing your best player to accommodate your former best player. And no, starting george at the two is not a negligible difference.

Surely you just didn't call Lance our best player...

Kstat
02-06-2013, 05:11 PM
Surely you just didn't call Lance our best player...

Lance isn't your starting small forward.

Cactus Jax
02-06-2013, 05:12 PM
Surely you just didn't call Lance our best player...

No he's talking about moving Paul to SG so Danny can be SF, Danny is way to slow to guard 2's.

Pacergeek
02-06-2013, 05:12 PM
Why wouldn't you want a guy that is playing like Lance... wait, ACTUALLY LANCE coming off the bench to help where we really need help?

If you guys say Danny is this decrepit old piece of dirt then hey, wouldn't he do much better in a unit that is actually producing?

And if Lance throws a fit because his starting spot was taken away to a player vastly superior to him, then he really didn't deserve the spot in the first place.

You seem threatened by Lance emerging as a star player. Not sure why you are so convinced that Lance needs to go back to the bench. I worry about David West if Lance is benched. Stephenson seems to know exactly where David needs the ball.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 05:15 PM
You seem threatened by Lance emerging as a star player. Not sure why you are so convinced that Lance needs to go back to the bench. I worry about David West if Lance is benched. Stephenson seems to know exactly where David needs the ball.

This.

The pacers are more threatening with lance starting than with Danny. Better chemistry, better ball movement, better defense.

Granger provides a volume shooter, but I don't think they need that in their starting five. The best defensive unit should start.

Pacergeek
02-06-2013, 05:15 PM
I wouldn't put too much stock in Vogel's words that Danny will start. Frank said last year that DC would return to the starting unit once he was healthy.....

daschysta
02-06-2013, 05:16 PM
Maybe he will. I just question the logic of displacing your best player to accommodate your former best player. And no, starting george at the two is not a negligible difference.

It's all about role, George can be fine at the two as long as we put the ball in his hands and Danny takes on more of a "finisher" role, which he is better suited at anyhow.

I'm of the mind that George didn't break out because he was at the 3, he broke out because he was humiliated by his scoreless game and consciously made the effort to assert himself. George's bread and butter is his jumper, which should be even easier to get off vs. Shooting guards. George will still get minutes at the 3 too, when Granger is on the bench. Paul will be fine.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 05:18 PM
George can be fine at the two. But he's very good at the 3. Again, you should be maximizing his effectiveness, not dialing him down a notch in favor of a guy with bad knees. He's not as good defensivey or offensively at SG.

The reality is both George and granger are naturals at the same position. Are you really in favor of telling the better player to play out of position?

This also hurts David West, because with another gunner out there, his touches get diminished.

Ace E.Anderson
02-06-2013, 05:19 PM
I wouldn't put too much stock in Vogel's words that Danny will start. Frank said last year that DC would return to the starting unit once he was healthy.....

Has it really come down to comparing Danny's worth to the team with what DC's was?

While the notion of considering utilizing Danny in a "Manu" type of 6th man role isn't out of the question, this board definitely has a lot of "what have you done for me lately".

We aren't exactly talking about some scrub here ppl, we're talking about our reigning leading scorer from the past 5 seasons.

daschysta
02-06-2013, 05:23 PM
This.

The pacers are more threatening with lance starting than with Danny. Better chemistry, better ball movement, better defense.

Granger provides a volume shooter, but I don't think they need that in their starting five. The best defensive unit should start.

It depends on how Granger looks, it isn't a given that Granger loses a step, he's expected back at 100% once he's in game shape, his injury wasn't structural, and the injections should actually strengthen the joint. It certainly wasn't the case that Danny hurt us defensively last season, we allowed 3.6 fewer points per 48 minutes that Danny was on the floor.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 05:24 PM
We aren't exactly talking about some scrub here ppl, we're talking about our reigning leading scorer from the past 5 seasons.

Are you arguing that granger is still a better player right now than George? If not, why is nostalgia dictating who gets to start at SF?

I'm not saying Danny is a defensive liability, at least not yet, but George is on another planet compared to last season, and a big reason is his switch to guarding bigger, more ball dominant small forwards.

He can go back to SG and still be very good, but again if he's your best player, why is he the one sacrificing? This isn't about being a good teammate, it's about what helps the pacers win more games. The better George is, the better the pacers are.

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 05:25 PM
I'm not threatened by Lance's progression at all. Nor did I imply it. I just feel if you want to keep him while not ruining chemistry you'd move him to where we needed him the most. In our poor excuse for a bench. If he makes West so much better just think what he can do for Tyler. We're fixing numerous problems here with this scenario.

Your perception of Danny is basically making him look like a rich man's Gerald Green.

Ace E.Anderson
02-06-2013, 05:29 PM
Are you arguing that granger is still a better player right now than George? If not, why is nostalgia dictating who gets to start at SF?

It's not a matter of Danny being better than Paul at a particular position, as much as it's Danny being better than Lance. Within this offense, there isn't that much of a difference between a SF and SG with the exception being what side of the floor they start on when on offense.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 05:30 PM
His spot was the starting SF. It isn't his spot anymore. And yes, it absolutely matters, especially if Danny has lost a step defensively.

Using him as a 6th man is probably in the best interest of the team, but I doubt granger would be happy with it.

I'm just going to highlight this so some people in this forum get it.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 05:31 PM
It's not a matter of Danny being better than Paul at a particular position, as much as it's Danny being better than Lance. Within this offense, there isn't that much of a difference between a SF and SG with the exception being what side of the floor they start on when on offense.

He isn't better than lance as a defender or passer. Even in his prime, granger was not as good at the things Stephenson does best right now.

He's a better small forward than lance, but lance doesn't play small forward.

cgg
02-06-2013, 05:33 PM
Didn't we just read last night that PG will defend the best opposing wing, and DG will offensively become the 2?

LetsTalkPacers84
02-06-2013, 05:33 PM
Does it matter who starts? Paul plays a ton of minutes. So unless we plan on only playing Danny when Paul is out, then Paul and Danny will have to figure out how to coexist.

Since86
02-06-2013, 05:33 PM
They're not going to change how PG gets the ball regardless if he's listed as the 2 or the 3 and/or regardless if he's playing next to Lance or Danny.

That's a non-point, whichever angle your coming from.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 05:33 PM
It's not a matter of Danny being better than Paul at a particular position, as much as it's Danny being better than Lance. Within this offense, there isn't that much of a difference between a SF and SG with the exception being what side of the floor they start on when on offense.

Is he? better scorer? yes, better at everything else? I don't think so.

Pacergeek
02-06-2013, 05:34 PM
I'm not threatened by Lance's progression at all. Nor did I imply it. I just feel if you want to keep him while not ruining chemistry you'd move him to where we needed him the most. In our poor excuse for a bench. If he makes West so much better just think what he can do to Tyler. We're fixing numerous problems here with this scenario.

Your perception of Danny is basically making him look like a rich man's Gerald Green.

Lance does make Tyler better. I have witnessed this. However I would rather have David West at his best. Granger is not a good passer. Take out Lance, and our ball movement goes down the drain

LetsTalkPacers84
02-06-2013, 05:36 PM
These are good problems to have. Can we all agree on that?

Kstat
02-06-2013, 05:38 PM
They're not going to change how PG gets the ball regardless if he's listed as the 2 or the 3 and/or regardless if he's playing next to Lance or Danny.

That's a non-point, whichever angle your coming from.

It makes a difference on defense, if granger is going to start guarding smaller, faster 2-guards whenever Indiana plays a team with a stud SF. Granger is not guarding Dwyane Wade or JR Smith anytime soon.

Also, someone is going to get fewer touches with Danny in the starting 5. Most likely, it'll be David West.

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 05:38 PM
Lance does make Tyler better. I have witnessed this. However I would rather have David West at his best. Granger is not a good passer. Take out Lance, and our ball movement goes down the drain

Why are we so worried about David West when we have a 7' 2" center who can't score at the rim even if he sold his soul to the devil?

Having Danny and Paul George out together is going to pull the defense away from the lane and Hibbert will get more open looks close to the basket. Just like last season. The defenses are clogging the lane with Lance out top because he just stands from time to time. His effectiveness has been off of transition and the pick and roll.

Since86
02-06-2013, 05:39 PM
It makes a difference on defense, if granger is going to start guarding smaller, faster 2-guards whenever Indiana plays a team with a stud SF. Granger is not guarding Dwyane Wade or JR Smith anytime soon.

Well Danny isn't going to only play when PG goes to the bench, so that problem is going to be there regardless.

I expect Lance to get similiar minutes even if he does go to the bench, as he should. You just bump OJ's minutes and/or DJ/Young's.

Ace E.Anderson
02-06-2013, 05:40 PM
He isn't better than lance as a defender or passer. Even in his prime, granger was not as good at the things Stephenson does best right now.

He's a better small forward than lance, but lance doesn't play small forward.

No he is not a better passer than Lance. I don't know why you seem to think Lance is a great defender, he is decent, probably even above average--but Danny isn't a scrub defensively either. Given his knee "injury" i'd say they're about a wash.

Danny is a better shooter, scorer than what Lance is. In fact, with Lance as our starter, we're one of the worst offensive teams in the league (29th in PPG--92.8). With Danny as our starter last year, we were 13th in PPG--97.7.

As I've said before, the idea of bringing Danny off the bench shouldn't be totally looked down upon, but to think it should be a foregone conclusion because Lance is having a decent year is kind of crazy to me.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 05:41 PM
Well Danny isn't going to only play when PG goes to the bench, so that problem is going to be there regardless.

My guess is Danny affords George a little more rest, so that's 14-15 minutes per game he can play while George is resting, leaving only 7-8 minutes where they have to co-exist, which you can coincide with David west's time on the bench.

Ace E.Anderson
02-06-2013, 05:42 PM
Is he? better scorer? yes, better at everything else? I don't think so.

A healthy Danny Granger? Yes he is.....right now

A decent half of a season doesn't trump 5-6 years of very good production.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 05:42 PM
You seem threatened by Lance emerging as a star player. Not sure why you are so convinced that Lance needs to go back to the bench. I worry about David West if Lance is benched. Stephenson seems to know exactly where David needs the ball.

Some people are threatened by the Lance and Paul George success, some still believe that Danny is better than Paul George when in reality Danny in his best years was not even as good as PG.

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 05:43 PM
No he is not a better passer than Lance. I don't know why you seem to think Lance is a great defender, he is decent, probably even above average--but Danny isn't a scrub defensively either. Given his knee "injury" i'd say they're about a wash.

Danny is a better shooter, scorer than what Lance is. In fact, with Lance as our starter, we're one of the worst offensive teams in the league (29th in PPG--92.8). With Danny as our starter last year, we were 13th in PPG--97.7.

As I've said before, the idea of bringing Danny off the bench shouldn't be totally looked down upon, but to think it should be a foregone conclusion because Lance is having a decent year is kind of crazy to me.

Lance disrupts the opponents' offense because of his speed and haphazard jukes and flails. Effective, yes. It just breaks my neck watching him.

Ace E.Anderson
02-06-2013, 05:43 PM
It makes a difference on defense, if granger is going to start guarding smaller, faster 2-guards whenever Indiana plays a team with a stud SF. Granger is not guarding Dwyane Wade or JR Smith anytime soon.

Also, someone is going to get fewer touches with Danny in the starting 5. Most likely, it'll be David West.

Nah, I think it'll be Roy and Hill. Moreso probably Hill though.

And Danny did a more than decent job on D-Wade in the playoffs last year

Kstat
02-06-2013, 05:44 PM
Nah, I think it'll be Roy and Hill. Moreso probably Hill though.

And Danny did a more than decent job on D-Wade in the playoffs last year

He wasn't guarding wade in the playoffs last year. George was. And wade managed to exploit his quickness advantage in PnRs as the series went on to the point that George became a total non factor after game 3.

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 05:44 PM
Some people are threatened by the Lance and Paul George success, some still believe that Danny is better than Paul George when in reality Danny in his best years was not even as good as PG.

Why would anyone wish that against Paul? I think the vast majority of fans are estatic with Paul's success. The major deal here is hoping he and Danny can co-exist together and they become a 1-2 punch in either order. It doesn't really matter who is better, just as long as they are both winning games for us.

Don't be such a curmudgeon.

Ace E.Anderson
02-06-2013, 05:45 PM
He wasn't guarding wade in the playoffs last year. George was.

There were a few stretches where Paul was guarding Lebron (had a BIG block on Bron during game 3 at BLF) and Danny was guarding Wade.

Since86
02-06-2013, 05:46 PM
My guess is Danny affords George a little more rest, so that's 14-15 minutes per game he can play while George is resting, leaving only 7-8 minutes where they have to co-exist, which you can coincide with David west's time on the bench.

Danny is going to get more than 21-23 mins per night, assuming he's healthy.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 05:47 PM
A healthy Danny Granger? Yes he is.....right now

A decent half of a season doesn't trump 5-6 years of very good production.

And you keep talking about the pass I rather talk about the present and the future, the present and the future have Paul George and Lance names all over it.

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 05:47 PM
There were a few stretches where Paul was guarding Lebron (had a BIG block on Bron during game 3 at BLF) and Danny was guarding Wade.

I don't think that was by design though. However they did switch off a few times.

Ace E.Anderson
02-06-2013, 05:47 PM
Some people are threatened by the Lance and Paul George success, some still believe that Danny is better than Paul George when in reality Danny in his best years was not even as good as PG.

No PG is the "face of the franchise". No doubt about that. Danny lost that title once he got hurt, and Paul got hot.

But that doesn't mean he can't be Paul's "robin"--a role many (posters and media types alike) have always said Danny was more suited to play.


And you keep talking about the pass I rather talk about the present and the future, the present and the future have Paul George and Lance names all over it.

Not disputing that whatsoever. I'm just not overlooking what Danny brings to the table

Kstat
02-06-2013, 05:48 PM
Danny is going to get more than 21-23 mins per night, assuming he's healthy.

He's not going to be, not even in a best case scenario. He'll still have conditioning issues even if his knees are 100%, which they won't be, at least not this season.

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 05:48 PM
And you keep talking about the pass I rather talk about the present and the future, the present and the future have Paul George and Lance names all over it.

The past?! Danny has been out only a half a season. Lance just broke through after the Young/Green starting experiment 15 or so games into the season.


Seriously, you're writing Danny off like he's Gerald Green. You need to stop that.

Since86
02-06-2013, 05:49 PM
Conditioning issues aren't going to last the rest of the regular season.

Danny is going to get more than 21-23 minutes.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 05:49 PM
No PG is the "face of the franchise". No doubt about that. Danny lost that title once he got hurt, and Paul got hot.

But that doesn't mean he can't be Paul's "robin"--a role many (posters and media types alike) have always said Danny was more suited to play.

Again, they play the same position. Nobody here would be on board with starting granger at shooting guard, which is what it would mean for granger to play "robin."

Cousy47
02-06-2013, 05:49 PM
Wow! I didn't realize that getting Granger back from an injury was going to completely ruin the Pacers. I also didn't understand that the best SG we've seen here since Reggie was doomed to be a scrub unless he was moved to SF. Maybe we should just put Danny on disability retirement until Paul is the MVP or signs a contract with the Lakers. Seems to me, PG would have broken out just as big if we had another SF who could have taken Danny's minutes. We lost our best scorer and PG had to take those shots. What position he took them from shouldn't have made much difference.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 05:51 PM
Why would anyone wish that against Paul? I think the vast majority of fans are estatic with Paul's success. The major deal here is hoping he and Danny can co-exist together and they become a 1-2 punch in either order. It doesn't really matter who is better, just as long as they are both winning games for us.

Don't be such a curmudgeon.

Maybe you are not wishing it but when you rather put your current all star(that is only 22 years old by the way) in his old position because the old star is coming back it doesn't really tell me that you care that much about him.

Since86
02-06-2013, 05:51 PM
Lance usually breaks the offense when he does his thing. The offensive play sets won't change subbing Danny in for Lance. He'll stand over on the opposite wing when PG is featured, just like Lance.

DrFife
02-06-2013, 05:51 PM
I wonder if the SF position simply will be split, timewise, with George also logging minutes at SG and Granger some at PF. The most minutes in the playoffs, though, probably will go to the young guns (George, Hill, Stephenson) ... something like:

C: Hibbert (32)/Mahinmi (12)/West (4)
PF: West (28)/Hans (12)/Granger (8)
SF: George (24)/Granger (24)
SG: Stephenson (32)/George (12)/Hill (4)
PG: Hill (32)/Augustin (12)/Stephenson (4)

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 05:54 PM
Maybe you are not wishing it but when you rather put your current all star(that is only 22 years old by the way) in his old position because the old star is coming back it doesn't really tell me that you care that much about him.

You're making too much of a big deal about this 2-3 position. If this were college it would matter. Why aren't you raising a stink about a natural shooting guard starting as our 1?

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 05:54 PM
The past?! Danny has been out only a half a season. Lance just broke through after the Young/Green starting experiment 15 or so games into the season.


Seriously, you're writing Danny off like he's Gerald Green. You need to stop that.


Yesterday is the past, yes the past and I'm sorry but I'm not comparing Danny to Gerald "the best off season signing" Green, I wouldn't do that to him.

Pacergeek
02-06-2013, 05:55 PM
Why are we so worried about David West when we have a 7' 2" center who can't score at the rim even if he sold his soul to the devil?

Having Danny and Paul George out together is going to pull the defense away from the lane and Hibbert will get more open looks close to the basket. Just like last season. The defenses are clogging the lane with Lance out top because he just stands from time to time. His effectiveness has been off of transition and the pick and roll.

Having Danny and Paul together means our offense regresses to last year. Pass to Roy, get out of the way. Pass to David, get out of the way. My turn, your turn. Doesn't work. Lance is the X factor. No fluke during this 4 game win streak Lance is playing his best ball this season

Kstat
02-06-2013, 05:56 PM
You're making too much of a big deal about this 2-3 position. If this were college it would matter. Why aren't you raising a stink about a natural shooting guard starting as our 1?

Because he's actually proving he can play point guard. Also, defensively he's a natural there.

If you can show me that granger can effectively defend shooting guards, then I have less of an issue. Of course, there's still the matter of David west's chemistry with lance that he really doesn't have with anyone else on the team.

Pacemaker
02-06-2013, 05:56 PM
As of right now Lance has been our best creator and facilitator on offense (our biggest deficiency). Bring Danny and his scoring punch (volume shooting) of the bench. And keep the future running as smoothly as ever.

Ace E.Anderson
02-06-2013, 05:57 PM
Having Danny and Paul together means our offense regresses to last year.

How the hell can you regress to something that was better?! Our offense scored 5 more ppg last year when compared to this year. And this is AFTER our recent string of offensive outbursts.

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 05:58 PM
Having Danny and Paul together means our offense regresses to last year. Pass to Roy, get out of the way. Pass to David, get out of the way. My turn, your turn. Doesn't work. Lance is the X factor. No fluke during this 4 game win streak Lance is playing his best ball this season

After scoring in single digits for 7 games straight with two of those being great big giant donuts. 0. 4 of those games were losses, sir.

He is still raw. He can do his "next best thing behind Basketball *****" on the bench.

And you're kidding, right? Roy has had no open looks in the lane all season. Why? There is no spacing being brought by our wings. West can stay in the high post because he makes those shots at a very high percentage. Roy needs an open lane to become as efficient as he did last year. (Which we had a higher scoring percentage...) smh.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 05:59 PM
No PG is the "face of the franchise". No doubt about that. Danny lost that title once he got hurt, and Paul got hot.

But that doesn't mean he can't be Paul's "robin"--a role many (posters and media types alike) have always said Danny was more suited to play.



Not disputing that whatsoever. I'm just not overlooking what Danny brings to the table



The highlighted part tells me a lot, you believe that "he got hot", by reading your previous posts it looks to me like you don't believe what you are seeing or you don't want to believe it because you still want your guy Danny to be "numero uno", is OK if you and others feel that way.

aiq24
02-06-2013, 06:01 PM
I personally believe that Lance would be a bigger benefit to the bench than Danny. Lance won't provide as much of a scoring output as Danny, but Lance will make everyone on the bench instantly better with his creativity offensively. I think Danny will in turn help Roy by providing another known threat to the starting offense, spreading the floor and daring teams to double team Roy/David. Preferably I would like to see Lance take on a role similar to Harden's at OKC, coming off the bench, but playing alot of minutes with the ones. Thereby pushing Danny to play some time at the floor and really giving this team versatility to match up and play with any team in the league. WE are really going to be scary with Danny back. So many options.

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 06:01 PM
The highlighted part tells me a lot, you believe that "he got hot", by reading your previous posts it looks to me like you don't believe what you are seeing or you don't want to believe it because you still want your guy Danny to be "numero uno", is OK if you and others feel that way.

Nobody here is calling Danny number one! We are talking about co-existence.

Ace E.Anderson
02-06-2013, 06:03 PM
The highlighted part tells me a lot, you believe that "he got hot", by reading your previous posts it looks to me like you don't believe what you are seeing or you don't want to believe it because you still want your guy Danny to be "numero uno", is OK if you and others feel that way.

Lol you forgot to read this part I assume
But that doesn't mean he can't be Paul's "robin"--a role many (posters and media types alike) have always said Danny was more suited to play.

But You're wrong. I've never once disputed Paul is now the "star" of the team. It's his team, and we'll only go as far as he leads us.

I said Paul got hot, because he was having a very inconsistent start to the season and we were being carried by D.West. After the goose egg in GS, everything changed for PG and the Pacers. He "got hot" and has been playing balls to the walls ever since. No complaints here. He is easily more talented and more diverse than Danny ever could be. Doesn't make Danny chopped liver nor does it make him any less important.

Prior to this home stand, everyone was clamoring for Danny to come back and Lance was seemingly hitting a wall. Now that he's playing great right now, we want to delegate Danny to the bench, and I don't think it's that simple. That's my beef

Kstat
02-06-2013, 06:04 PM
Nobody here is calling Danny number one! We are talking about co-existence.

Who would you start at SF?

I don't want to hear about cross matching on defense, or how how the offense wouldn't change (which it absolutely would). All I want to knows who starts at the 3 between George and granger, according to you.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 06:05 PM
You're making too much of a big deal about this 2-3 position. If this were college it would matter. Why aren't you raising a stink about a natural shooting guard starting as our 1?

I'm not making a big deal about the positions the thing is that if I have a player that is playing close to a superstar level at one position why do I want to change that? I'm also worry about removing Lance from the starting unit, I want him to develop, he has the potential to be special why change that?

And another thing nobody else has mention is how many easy shots or layups are West and Paul George getting by playing with Lance? you can't underestimate Lance impact.

cgg
02-06-2013, 06:07 PM
Didn't we just read last night that PG will defend the best opposing wing, and DG will offensively become the 2?

???

Pacergeek
02-06-2013, 06:09 PM
After scoring in single digits for 7 games straight with two of those being great big giant donuts. 0. 4 of those games were losses, sir.

He is still raw. He can do his "next best thing behind Basketball *****" on the bench.

And you're kidding, right? Roy has had no open looks in the lane all season. Why? There is no spacing being brought by our wings. West can stay in the high post because he makes those shots at a very high percentage. Roy needs an open lane to become as efficient as he did last year. (Which we had a higher scoring percentage...) smh.

Sorry but this looks like Lance bashing to me, and I will not stand for it. Let me guess, you never liked Stephenson? Thought he was all hype? Boasted to everyone on PD how he was never going to pan out? Now that he has proven that not only can he play, but play very well, you are secretly rooting against him? You essentially want him to fail just so you can say "i told you so" to us PD nerds. Did I miss anything here?

Kstat
02-06-2013, 06:10 PM
???

What that implies is that every team only has one wing capable of doing damage.

Using miami or NY as an example, you'd be asking Granger to defend smaller, faster, explosive players, guys Lance has shown to be at least adept at defending thus far.

The matchups work in Indianas favor with George on lebron and lance on wade. Granger on wade, I think would be a bigger problem, which would force vogel to go granger on lebron and George on wade...and then you have last year's series.

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 06:10 PM
Who would you start at SF?

I don't want to hear about cross matching on defense, or how how the offense wouldn't change (which it absolutely would). All I want to knows who starts at the 3 between George and granger, according to you.
Granger.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 06:12 PM
Lol you forgot to read this part I assume

But You're wrong. I've never once disputed Paul is now the "star" of the team. It's his team, and we'll only go as far as he leads us.

I said Paul got hot, because he was having a very inconsistent start to the season and we were being carried by D.West. After the goose egg in GS, everything changed for PG and the Pacers. He "got hot" and has been playing balls to the walls ever since. No complaints here. He is easily more talented and more diverse than Danny ever could be. Doesn't make Danny chopped liver nor does it make him any less important.

Prior to this home stand, everyone was clamoring for Danny to come back and Lance was seemingly hitting a wall. Now that he's playing great right now, we want to delegate Danny to the bench, and I don't think it's that simple. That's my beef

Your beef is that you think that if the Pacers move Danny to the bench they are pretty much telling him that he is not good enough, I don't see it that way, I mean if Manu Ginobili was willing to come off the bench why Danny can't do the same?

Even Amare a player that many believe is a diva is coming off the bench without a problem, he is actually embracing it and because of that his team is better.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 06:13 PM
Granger.

Then, by definition, granger is "number one," to you. George is the one playing out of position to accommodate Danny, in your scenario, so Danny can play his natural position.

You can argue that you still think George is the team's best player, but generally you don't ask your undisputed best player to play out of position to accommodate a lesser player.

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 06:15 PM
Sorry but this looks like Lance bashing to me, and I will not stand for it. Let me guess, you never liked Stephenson? Thought he was all hype? Boasted to everyone on PD how he was never going to pan out? Now that he has proven that not only can he play, but play very well, you are secretly rooting against him? You essentially want him to fail just so you can say "i told you so" to us PD nerds. Did I miss anything here?

I don't wish anyone on this team failure. I'm sorry but I left my dueling glove in the camper so you'll probably have to stand for it a while longer.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 06:16 PM
Then, by definition, granger is "number one," to you. George is the one playing out of position to accommodate Danny, in your scenario, so Danny can play his natural position.

Exactly.

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 06:17 PM
Then, by definition, granger is "number one," to you. George is the one playing out of position to accommodate Danny, in your scenario, so Danny can play his natural position.

On paper, you have a point guard, shooting guard, small forward, power forward and center. When the lineups come out, you have to put a name somewhere. Those two positions mean squat to me unless we are talking college ball and we're not. They are going to get assigned a specific player on defense and Vogel will draw up an offensive scheme that will suit both of their talents. To tell me that I am picking Danny over Paul RIGHT NOW, at 5:20 PM on February 6th, 2013 is asinine.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 06:19 PM
On paper, you have a point guard, shooting guard, small forward, power forward and center. When the lineups come out, you have to put a name somewhere. Those two positions mean squat to me unless we are talking college ball and we're not. They are going to get assigned a specific player on defense and Vogel will draw up an offensive scheme that will suit both of their talents. To tell me that I am picking Danny over Paul RIGHT NOW, at 5:20 PM on February 6th, 2013 is asinine.

...except, that's precisely what you did when you said you'd start Danny at SF. The are both naturals at the same position, so by rule one of them is going to have to take a back seat to the other if there both going to start.

You could have said you'd start granger at SG, but you didn't.

If you're uncomfortable with the "shooting guard" designation, I can replace it for you with "wacky smacky dribbling guy," but that isn't going to change the fact there are serious defensive concerns with him guarding the other "wacky smacky dribbling guys" in the east that you will see in the postseason, such as jr smith. Dwyane wade, and rip Hamilton.

pacer4ever
02-06-2013, 06:21 PM
His spot was the starting SF. It isn't his spot anymore. And yes, it absolutely matters, especially if Danny has lost a step defensively.

Using him as a 6th man is probably in the best interest of the team, but I doubt granger would be happy with it.

I agree completely we are so much better when Lance is on the floor then when he isn't. The offense rating is a pretty dramatic splits. The defense is about the same also.

I really want Granger off the bench I love our starting 5 as a unit they need to play together as much as possible. Lance may be the 3rd 4th or 5th option in the unit but he is the glue that makes it work IMO. Like David West has said when Lance plays well the Pacers play well.


I also read an article on Cornrows that makes it sound like that in the near future Lance will be moving to the primary ball handler.

Walsh
Donnie Walsh on Lance Stephenson:

Didn't play a whole lot in his first two years but then this year, in part because of Danny, but he was going to play anyway because we just needed to commit to that. He's gotten time and basically, fit his talent into an NBA game. He's been playing at the two guard position so he's been learning how to come off of screens and he's learning how to play without the ball which will help him for the day when he gets back to playing with the ball.

He's done very well and actually in the last couple of games (DEN DET) he's done extremely well. In transition, he's like a mini-LeBron in a sense that he really gets the ball down the court quickly and comes at you with a big body, so we get a lot of good out of that. He sees the floor and he's a willing passer so I think he'll continue to get better at that. His shooting has been good as far as, he'll hit the three he can take it to the goal. There are games he goes in and helps us on the boards and defensively he's learning every day but he has a defensive mindset and I think also has the skill set to be an awfully good defender some day. But he's only 22 years old.

http://www.indycornrows.com/2013/2/5/3956224/donnie-walsh-david-west-like-what-lance-stephenson-brings-to-the


EDIT:

http://dimemag.com/2013/01/indianas-other-secret-weapon/

http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2013/01/how-lance-stephenson-has-been-critical-to-the-pacers-success/



Two great articles how how good we play with Lance. Granger will be a serious help to what we need I just want our starting 5 to still play 25mpg together when he comes back.

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 06:22 PM
...except, that's precisely what you did when you said you'd start Danny at SF. The are both naturals at the same position, so by rule one of them is going to have to take a back seat to the other if there both going to start.

You could have said you'd start granger at SG, but you didn't.
Because you can put Paul at that "shooting guard" position. It doesn't matter. It will not affect one damn thing!

Kstat
02-06-2013, 06:23 PM
Because you can put Paul at that "shooting guard" position. It doesn't matter. It will not affect one damn thing!

It affects who's guarding who on defense.

Sookie
02-06-2013, 06:26 PM
How the hell can you regress to something that was better?! Our offense scored 5 more ppg last year when compared to this year. And this is AFTER our recent string of offensive outbursts.

This. This is key. Our offense was better, last season. Granger takes some pressure off of West and PG that Lance just doesn't do.

And our team should be better defensively with him too.

Granger is, at absolute worst, our third best player. Yes. We start him.

edit: It doesn't effect who is guarding who on defense. PG gets put on the best perimeter player on the other team..unless the matchup doesn't work out in either Granger or PG's favor. (Granger is stronger so sometimes we need him on a stronger "best perimeter" player. Or in the case of the Heat, where Granger just can't guard Wade..) And before anyone says "see, that's why you need positions." At the end of the day, Granger and PG are going to be in the game at the same time..at the end of the game..together. And it's likely West and Roy will be in there with him, so they'll have to learn to play together. (And I have a feeling people are fearing something they don't need to fear.)

daschysta
02-06-2013, 06:34 PM
What that implies is that every team only has one wing capable of doing damage.

Using miami or NY as an example, you'd be asking Granger to defend smaller, faster, explosive players, guys Lance has shown to be at least adept at defending thus far.

The matchups work in Indianas favor with George on lebron and lance on wade. Granger on wade, I think would be a bigger problem, which would force vogel to go granger on lebron and George on wade...and then you have last year's series.

Except George can win or par his matchup vs. Wade this time around, and David West is far more capable of punishing Miami's smalls. Not to mention having adequate size off the bench now.

I would take being up 2-1 over Miami again in a heartbeat.

Nuntius
02-06-2013, 06:34 PM
Using him as a 6th man is probably in the best interest of the team, but I doubt granger would be happy with it.

Granger has shown that he is willing to step back if it's for the best interest of the team.

However, I prefer Lance Stephenson as the 6th man. He runs a lot more (and our 2nd unit can run unlike the first) and he can both score and distribute.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 06:36 PM
Except George can win or par his matchup vs. Wade this time around, and David West is far more capable of punishing Miami's smalls. Not to mention having adequate size off the bench now.

I would take being up 2-1 over Miami again in a heartbeat.

...so you're comfortable taking your best defender off the league MVP and letting granger guard him for a full playoff series...

Even if I agreed that George would be any more effective against Wade (which I don't), the logic here still fails me. You're going to entrust the defensive assignment of the NBA's undisputed best player to the second best defensive small forward on your own team?

Sookie
02-06-2013, 06:40 PM
...so you're comfortable taking your best defender off the league's best player and letting granger guard him for a full playoff series...

Even if I agreed that George would be any more effective against Wade (which I dont'), the logic here fails me.

It's arguable that Danny is a better defensive matchup against Lebron than PG is.

Not only that, but Lebron can't beat us by himself. If Wade doesn't play like an MVP with him, the Heat won't win. Wade's got a much smaller chance of playing like an MVP with PG on him than with Lance on him. (not because Lance was bad on him...but because Paul George is Paul George.)

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 06:44 PM
It's arguable that Danny is a better defensive matchup against Lebron than PG is.

I'm not sure about that, remind me who was guarding Lebron when he got his career numbers?


Not only that, but Lebron can't beat us by himself.

I'm pretty sure I saw him winning one or two games by himself.


If Wade doesn't play like an MVP with him, the Heat won't win. Wade's got a much smaller chance of playing like an MVP with PG on him than with Lance on him. (not because Lance was bad on him...but because Paul George is Paul George.)

Lance has done a pretty good job on Wade in this last two games against Miami, what makes you think that he can't do the same thing later?

Kstat
02-06-2013, 06:44 PM
It's arguable that Danny is a better defensive matchup against Lebron than PG is.


:spitout: :banghead: :suicide:

I give up. I have nothing to add to this....I can't even respond with anything substantial. I give up.

Maybe subconsciously, those three similies are what I believe represents the beginning, middle and end of what would happen to the Pacer fan collective if Vogel announced Granger and not George would be guarding LeBron in a 7 game playoff series.

TMJ31
02-06-2013, 06:45 PM
Yea, sorry guys but Danny is definitely our starter.

I love Lance, and am very happy with his progression. Now just imagine what he will be able to do against the second string guards in the league after seeing him toy with DWade and the like the past few weeks!

I am not saying it's a 100% slam dunk, no questions asked kind of proposition. But Danny Granger is a starter on the Indiana Pacers, that's just common sense.

OlBlu
02-06-2013, 06:53 PM
Yea, sorry guys but Danny is definitely our starter.

I love Lance, and am very happy with his progression. Now just imagine what he will be able to do against the second string guards in the league after seeing him toy with DWade and the like the past few weeks!

I am not saying it's a 100% slam dunk, no questions asked kind of proposition. But Danny Granger is a starter on the Indiana Pacers, that's just common sense.

If they move Granger in as a starter immediately, I think the Pacers will slide back to fourth or fifth in the East. Granger's replacement is already here, let him play SF. I don't want to see Lance lose any minutes with the first team. Granger can't or won't defend his position and he slides back a little more every year. Put him on the bench and bring him in and perhaps even give him some PF minutes. :cool: ...

DJVendetta
02-06-2013, 06:53 PM
I find the whole argument almost useless. No wait I take that back, it is completely useless. Lets just trust Vogel to make the right call and if he doesn't, lets trust him to fix it. We won't know what Paul and Granger are like together until we see it with them both in top form and until then no one here really knows, so what is the use of getting all worked up? I want Granger to come back, be in form, and fit in real quick (whether its in the bench, or the starting line up) so everyone will stfu about the topic of, bench him, dont bench him, trade him, or don't trade him. That being said, I can't wait for Granger to come back to this team! :buddies:

OlBlu
02-06-2013, 06:54 PM
It's arguable that Danny is a better defensive matchup against Lebron than PG is.

No it isn't, it isn't even close to being true.....

Not only that, but Lebron can't beat us by himself. If Wade doesn't play like an MVP with him, the Heat won't win. Wade's got a much smaller chance of playing like an MVP with PG on him than with Lance on him. (not because Lance was bad on him...but because Paul George is Paul George.)

Uhhh, I think Lebron already beat this team by himself last year......:cool: ...

Justin Tyme
02-06-2013, 06:57 PM
Why wouldn't you want a guy that is playing like Lance... wait, ACTUALLY LANCE coming off the bench to help where we really need help?

If you guys say Danny is this decrepit old piece of dirt then hey, wouldn't he do much better in a unit that is actually producing?

And if Lance throws a fit because his starting spot was taken away to a player vastly superior to him, then he really didn't deserve the spot in the first place.


It's sorta a unwritten rule a player doesn't lose his starting job do to an injury. Well, DC after starting 50 plus games with the Pacers playing well lost his job to Hill. IMO, I personally feel Lance has a case if he didn't want to go to the bench for Granger. Granger hasn't attributed 1 minute to the success of where the Pacers are right now. Lance has. Let Granger win his job back... if he can. If Granger can't beat out Lance and is unhappy with the situation of coming off the bench, then ask for a trade. One thing about Walsh is he's willing to accommodate players who want to be traded.

Sollozzo
02-06-2013, 07:01 PM
It's sorta a unwritten rule a player doesn't lose his starting job do to an injury.



http://blog.sfgate.com/49ers/files/2011/11/49ers14_PH3_alexsmith-e1321345743260.jpg

daschysta
02-06-2013, 07:03 PM
...so you're comfortable taking your best defender off the league MVP and letting granger guard him for a full playoff series...

Even if I agreed that George would be any more effective against Wade (which I don't), the logic here still fails me. You're going to entrust the defensive assignment of the NBA's undisputed best player to the second best defensive small forward on your own team?

I wasn't arguing for Danny guarding James necessarily, just that we'd have a better shot at finishing them off this season were we up 2-1 like last year simply by virtue of George's own improvement, West's health and a more well equipped bench (including stephenson).


In fact against Miami in particular Granger can pick up some minutes on Bosh at the 4 position. The fact is that it's unlikely that Vogel would even ask Granger to come of the bench in the first place, thus we'll make due, and I think we're a better team overall with him as a starter, so that Lance can create for the guys off the bench, who are lessa adept at creating their own offense than the starters. Plus, he'll have the ball in his hands more often and can look for his own shot more than he can as a starter.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 07:04 PM
I wasn't arguing for Danny guarding James necessarily, just that we'd have a better shot at finishing them off this season were we up 2-1 like last year simply by virtue of George's own improvement, West's health and a more well equipped bench (including stephenson).


In fact against Miami in particular Granger can pick up some minutes on Bosh at the 4 position. The fact is that it's unlikely that Vogel would even ask Granger to come of the bench in the first place, thus we'll make due, and I think we're a better team overall with him as a starter, so that Lance can create for the guys off the bench, who are lessa adept at creating their own offense than the starters. Plus, he'll have the ball in his hands more often and can look for his own shot more than he can as a starter.

...so you're saying granger should guard bosh?

So exactly does he guard on Miami if he starts? He has to guard someone....

If you're going to play a defensive style, first priority needs to be putting the best defensive 5 out there.

Goyle
02-06-2013, 07:16 PM
I think some of you are severely doubting PG's versatility if you think moving him to SG is a disservice to him.

Danny doesn't strike me as the kind of player that can come in off the bench and be a spark like most 6th men types. Those guys are usually ball dominant guards that can create for others, Danny isn't that guy. Lance definitely is.

On the Heat matchups, I don't think we'll have Danny guard Wade, but to be honest, I'm all for it. At this point in Wade's career he ether goes off completely or looks like trash and I really don't think that has anything to do with who's guarding him.

OlBlu
02-06-2013, 07:20 PM
I think some of you are severely doubting PG's versatility if you think moving him to SG is a disservice to him.

Danny doesn't strike me as the kind of player that can come in off the bench and be a spark like most 6th men types. Those guys are usually ball dominant guards that can create for others, Danny isn't that guy. Lance definitely is.

On the Heat matchups, I don't think we'll have Danny guard Wade, but to be honest, I'm all for it. At this point in Wade's career he ether goes off completely or looks like trash and I really don't think that has anything to do with who's guarding him.

Every SG in the NBA would eat Granger alive........ He isn't quick enough to guard the better SFs. :cool: ...

Dr. Awesome
02-06-2013, 07:20 PM
3 games of scoring 100+ points and its time to bench Danny....

I think Danny fits in much better with the starters than Lance imo. Lance is best with the ball in his hands, creating for himself and others. Danny is much better without the ball and a better shooter. I think Lance is exactly what the bench needs honestly. I just hope Ian can catch his passes.

I disagree.

Our starting 5 has some of the best chemistry in the NBA. I'd HATE to break that up, even for Granger.

Justin Tyme
02-06-2013, 07:24 PM
Some players player better as a starter than coming off the bench. What if Stephenson's game suffers not being a starter? What if the Pacers suffer with Lance not starting? Then what?

Ace E.Anderson
02-06-2013, 07:25 PM
I disagree.

Our starting 5 has some of the best chemistry in the NBA. I'd HATE to break that up, even for Granger.

Our starting 5 had some of the best chemistry last year, including Danny.

As good as our chemistry has been, we still suck offensively.

Justin Tyme
02-06-2013, 07:25 PM
http://blog.sfgate.com/49ers/files/2011/11/49ers14_PH3_alexsmith-e1321345743260.jpg\


Sorry, I have no clue as to who this is or your point.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 07:30 PM
Our starting 5 had some of the best chemistry last year, including Danny.

As good as our chemistry has been, we still suck offensively.

That was last year, lets talk about the present and future and yes we suck offensively in big part because the Pacers failed to rebuild the bench.

Pacer Fan
02-06-2013, 07:32 PM
Maybe, doubt coach knows at this point.

BobbyMac
02-06-2013, 07:33 PM
I believe they should give it a few games to see what groups play best together. After all the object of the game is to win, not worry about who scores the most points for our team.

Sookie
02-06-2013, 07:52 PM
:spitout: :banghead: :suicide:

I give up. I have nothing to add to this....I can't even respond with anything substantial. I give up.

Maybe subconsciously, those three similies are what I believe represents the beginning, middle and end of what would happen to the Pacer fan collective if Vogel announced Granger and not George would be guarding LeBron in a 7 game playoff series.

Granger is stronger. Lebron was backing PG down anytime he wanted to the last game we played. That scared me. And you better believe Lebron noticed he could do that. And he'll do it more often in the playoffs. (so after Roy helped Lebron with his floater, PG is going to teach him how to become better at posting up. You're welcome NBA.) Regardless, that's not the point.

The point is we win the playoff series last season if Wade doesn't go off too. They both do need to play at that level to beat us. I'm confident that Granger/George against Lebron/Wade is a better match up, both defensively and offensively. (I mean seriously..how in the world is Wade going to guard Granger or George) than George/Lance vs Lebron/Wade. (Basically what I'm saying, is that in the playoffs, I'm more comfortable with Granger on Lebron, than Lance on Wade.)

If it's not working out that way, there are numerous ways our team can adjust. We can go small (although I wouldn't suggest taking away our strength) We can play different defenses, we can simply move George to Lebron.....

I think people have forgotten how good Danny is. And us having essentially six starters isn't a bad thing. But the obvious choice for the bench is Lance, IMO. (assuming Danny is himself.)

Pace Maker
02-06-2013, 07:52 PM
I agree. Paul George is playing excellent with his current position and role, why mess with that? Our bench is pretty terrible and Granger could definitely help fix that.

Whether I would want Granger to finish close games mainly depends on how Paul George looks playing the 2

Goyle
02-06-2013, 07:57 PM
Every SG in the NBA would eat Granger alive........ He isn't quick enough to guard the better SFs. :cool: ...

PG's guards the best perimeter player. That's how it is now, that's how it'll be when Granger gets back. I'm only counting 5 teams in the east that would require Granger to guard SGs and Dwyane Wade is the only player that I think could "eat Granger alive."

Kstat
02-06-2013, 08:09 PM
PG's guards the best perimeter player. That's how it is now, that's how it'll be when Granger gets back. I'm only counting 5 teams in the east that would require Granger to guard SGs and Dwyane Wade is the only player that I think could "eat Granger alive."

...you mean pretty much every team you're competing with in the east?

Steagles
02-06-2013, 08:11 PM
\


Sorry, I have no clue as to who this is or your point.

It's Alex Smith, San Francisco 49ers QB. He got hurt this year, Colin Kaepernick beasted it up and he hasn't played since, even though he was healthy during a lot of the games Kaepernick started.

Anthem
02-06-2013, 08:17 PM
George can be fine at the two. But he's very good at the 3.
I don't really know what this means. What exactly is the difference between the 3 and the 2 in our system? Or are you talking about defense only?

Coopdog23
02-06-2013, 08:20 PM
Vogel will probably have him be the sixth man when he returns so they don't mess up the starting five's chemistry

Pacerized
02-06-2013, 08:20 PM
Granger will start at the 3 and PG will start at the 2, it's the best thing for the team. I still expect Danny to be the best offensive player we have once he adjust and I think he'll most likely lead the team in points per game by the end of the year. Danny is a very good defender and I think he guards the 3 better the PG does, I don't think he gets due credit in that area. PG is a better perimeter defender but Danny isn't bad their either. Of the 2 PG is better suited to guard the 2 then Danny is, nothing else makes sense for this team. Not starting your best scorer would be just plain stupid.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 08:21 PM
I don't really know what this means. What exactly is the difference between the 3 and the 2 in our system? Or are you talking about defense only?

Defense. You can run whatever system you want on offense, though they are not at all suited to play together that end, either.

Anthem
02-06-2013, 08:22 PM
Having Danny and Paul together means our offense regresses to last year.
:confused: Our offense last year was better than it is this year.

Anthem
02-06-2013, 08:28 PM
Defense. You can run whatever system you want on offense, though they are not at all suited to play together that end, either.
Ok. I'll talk defense with you in a moment, but for now let's stick with offense. And lets assume for the sake of discussion that Danny's reasonably healthy. If he's not capable of playing more than 20mpg, then this entire discussion is moot.

What about Danny's game would detract from Paul George, or vice versa? I see Paul/Granger/Lance getting pretty much all of the minutes, which means we'll see Danny/PG, Danny/Lance, and PG/Lance. I think all three of those will be effective pairings. But even if you bring Danny off the bench, you've still got to play him with PG some of the time.

BlueNGold
02-06-2013, 08:31 PM
How to use Granger is a tough decision IMO. I would probably keep our starting unit because it really is working out well...and fit Danny in as a backup instead of players like Sam Young and OJ.

If he takes Lance's spot in the starting unit, the matchups are not to our advantage. He would need to guard LeBron and LeBron would be able to operate. Wade would run Paul around screens and LeBron would dish to him for an and-one.

A better plan is to have Paul disrupt LeBron and give help on Wade. We'll have to do that anyway, btw, when Wade gets hot.

It's good that it's a tough decision though. It just shows how well we match up with the Heat. Hibbert, as weak as his game is on offense, he remains critical to the D. You cannot take DWest or Paul off the floor. Granger is probably going to be a step slow, so I'm not sure he replaces our guards. But he can be a great addition to the bench.

OlBlu
02-06-2013, 08:32 PM
Granger will start at the 3 and PG will start at the 2, it's the best thing for the team. I still expect Danny to be the best offensive player we have once he adjust and I think he'll most likely lead the team in points per game by the end of the year. Danny is a very good defender and I think he guards the 3 better the PG does, I don't think he gets due credit in that area. PG is a better perimeter defender but Danny isn't bad their either. Of the 2 PG is better suited to guard the 2 then Danny is, nothing else makes sense for this team. Not starting your best scorer would be just plain stupid.

Granger should not even be mentioned in the same sentence with PG defensively. PG has already passed him as our best offensive player. If bringing Granger back alters that, the Pacers will play about .500 for the rest of the season and lose positions in the east. Granger can't guard a 2 at all, he doesn't have the footspeed or the desire to defend. I don't know where this crap about Danny being a good defender comes from, he has never been a good defender and he never will be......:cool: ...

Kstat
02-06-2013, 08:33 PM
Ok. I'll talk defense with you in a moment, but for now let's stick with offense. And lets assume for the sake of discussion that Danny's reasonably healthy. If he's not capable of playing more than 20mpg, then this entire discussion is moot.

What about Danny's game would detract from Paul George, or vice versa? I see Paul/Granger/Lance getting pretty much all of the minutes, which means we'll see Danny/PG, Danny/Lance, and PG/Lance. I think all three of those will be effective pairings. But even if you bring Danny off the bench, you've still got to play him with PG some of the time.

Neither of them are primary ball handlers. George has improved his ability to shoot off 2-3 dribbles, but he does not provide what lance does, which is another guy that can handle the ball and feed both west and hibbert with accurate passes. George loses his effectiveness when he's forced to handle the ball too long.

They're both guys that catch and either shoot or take 2-3 dribbles and then shoot, albeit from different spots on the floor. Fine if you have Chris Paul dominating the ball on offense. Not so much if you have George Hill.

BlueNGold
02-06-2013, 08:39 PM
Granger should not even be mentioned in the same sentence with PG defensively. PG has already passed him as our best offensive player. If bringing Granger back alters that, the Pacers will play about .500 for the rest of the season and lose positions in the east. Granger can't guard a 2 at all, he doesn't have the footspeed or the desire to defend. I don't know where this crap about Danny being a good defender comes from, he has never been a good defender and he never will be......:cool: ...

Danny started his career being a pretty good defender. He got really bad and now he's about an average defender. Yes, that is a far cry from Paul George. So, I agree. Just ask LeBron what he thinks...

Anthem
02-06-2013, 08:42 PM
Neither of them are primary ball handlers. George has improved his ability to shoot off 2-3 dribbles, but he does not provide what lance does, which is another guy that can handle the ball and feed both west and hibbert with accurate passes. George loses his effectiveness when he's forced to handle the ball too long.

They're both guys that catch and either shoot or take 2-3 dribbles and then shoot, albeit from different spots on the floor. Fine if you have Chris Paul dominating the ball on offense. Not so much if you have George Hill.
I'll grant that Lance is a better ballhandler than Danny Granger, and Lance frequently makes incredible heads-up passes to our bigs (and everybody else, actually). But I don't concede that Danny can't feed the post. I've always thought he did that pretty well, actually.

Ultimately, we'll just have to see. If Danny and Paul George don't work well together, I'll be totally fine with Danny coming off the bench. I just don't see that as likely. So... time to talk about defense?

Goyle
02-06-2013, 08:45 PM
...you mean pretty much every team you're competing with in the east?

But none of those teams have a guy thats going to kill Danny. How many teams are going to go away from their best player to try and take advantage of Danny?

Kstat
02-06-2013, 08:47 PM
But none of those teams have a guy thats going to kill Danny. How many teams are going to go away from their best player to try and take advantage of Danny?

...how many times did the pacers go to hibbert in the postseason to take advantage of Miami's centers?

Goyle
02-06-2013, 08:56 PM
...how many times did the pacers go to hibbert in the postseason to take advantage of Miami's centers?

Probably as much as we did against any other team. Roy was our best player last season.

Anthem
02-06-2013, 09:00 PM
Eastern Wing Combos:

1. Miami - Wade / LeBron
2. New York - Shumpert / Anthony
3. Indiana ---
4. Chicago - Deng / Rip
5. Brooklyn - J.Johnson / G.Wallace
6. Atlanta - D.Harris / J.Smith
7. Milwaukee - Ellis / Mbah a Moute
8. Boston - Lee / Pierce

In most cases, I think a PG/Danny combo, a PG/Lance combo, or a Danny/Lance combo could be effective at guarding these guys. I expect us to send multiple looks at every offensive player. I could see Danny and Paul switching back and forth a lot, to keep the defense off-balance. I'm not trying to have a ton of bravado, but I think we could do a good job against every one of those combos.

cgg
02-06-2013, 09:02 PM
He's probably counting JR "I shoot 40%" Smith for NY.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 09:08 PM
He's probably counting JR "I shoot 40%" Smith for NY.

.416% for Danny last year and .438% for his career........

cgg
02-06-2013, 09:16 PM
.416% for Danny last year and .438% for his career........

.542 TS% .564 career.
.494 for JR Smith.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 09:26 PM
.542 TS% .564 career.
.494 for JR Smith.

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


I'm pretty sure you are looking at Lebron james or Tyler Chandler shooting percentage.

cgg
02-06-2013, 09:28 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/grangda01.html


I'm pretty sure you are looking at Lebron james or Tyler Chandler shooting percentage.

True shooting percentage is weighted for FT and the value of 3 pointers.

beast23
02-06-2013, 09:32 PM
It affects who's guarding who on defense.

You keep saying that, but man you've got to get past that point. Does it not occur to you that George will defend the opponents best wing player, regardless of whether that player is a SG or a SF? This is especially true if one of the opposing players is a prolific scorer.

timid
02-06-2013, 10:03 PM
I feel Frank should do what he said he was gonna do...Bring Danny off the bench at first, then put him in the starting lineup....

Ace E.Anderson
02-06-2013, 10:08 PM
At the end of the day you need to ask yourself, who is going to be closing games? I'd like to think at this point most people (with the exception of Pacergeek) would think that Danny will close the games out--especially in the playoffs. If you're comfortable with Danny closing games, why aren't you comfortable with him starting?

You wanna say you don't want to mess up the chemistry of the current starters, well I say that our team last year was lauded for it's team chemistry WITH Danny being a part of that.

You wanna say that you don't want PG guarding SG's, but he's going to be guarding the opposing teams best perimeter threats no matter what. So that means when we play the Brooklyn Nets, he's going to be guarding Joe Johnson, in spite of the fact that Joe is going to be playing the 2. It also means that he's going to be guarding Lebron and Carmelo as well. So it doesn't really matter WHO is starting with him.

You wanna say we're going to miss Lance's creativity and ability to push the ball in transition, well I say we're going to be gaining another spot up shooter/versatile scorer who can help take pressure off of West and Paul. We're also going to be adding a player that is going to get about 5 plus FT/ATT a game.

I can see similarities between Manu/Kevin Martin/Jamal Crawford type of scorer off the bench. But those types of players are NORMALLY dynamic, ball handling, change of pace perimeter players. Danny is NOT one of those types. With him in the second unit, yes he's going to get all the shots he wants, but he's not going to help guys like Tyler or Ian. Lance however is one of those dynamic ball handlers that I described and his presence in the second unit will help the guys within the second unit much more than the presence of a scorer like Danny would.

IF Danny were to come off the bench, I wouldn't be too disappointed as I'd expect him to be the player that CLOSES the games. But there are just as many counter arguments for him to start as there is for him to come off the bench.

Banta
02-06-2013, 10:53 PM
This is not last years' team. The chemistry they had last year is way different than the chemistry they are showing now. They were practically Cinderella last year whereas this season they seem like strong winners.

Suggesting Granger to the bench is no knock on Granger-- its the opposite. The reserves will benefit greatly from a veteran presence. People will say the reserves need a dynamic presence like Lance. I aboslutely love Lance, but I think Granger is definitely a better influence on the bench than Lance is. The dynamic between Lance and the other starters is difficult to quantify, but its there. Lance and Paul have become men together on the court this year. They are a tandem. Vogel should not break that up. It will be regretted if he does.

Nuntius
02-06-2013, 11:26 PM
Having Danny and Paul together means our offense regresses to last year.

Which was significantly more efficient than the offense we run this season.

Nuntius
02-06-2013, 11:47 PM
...how many times did the pacers go to hibbert in the postseason to take advantage of Miami's centers?

Teams with a balanced starting 5 can exploit the miss match and take advantage of the opponent's weakness.

Teams with superstars will keep feeding the superstar.

jeffg-body
02-07-2013, 12:05 AM
It's not like we are gonna see the entire 2nd unit in the game at the same time. There is usually a mix in there depending who is hot and who is in foul trouble. I'd start Danny when he is ready to go those minutes and if he is not ready have him come off of the bench for a few games to get the rust off and get his feet wet. With Danny and Paul on the floor at the same time it intrigues me to see how a further along Paul and a healthy Danny would play together. Most teams would have difficulty with our length and as long as Danny plays defense on an average level we will exploit mismatches. I would like to see more of Lance getting a few minutes at the 1 spot in addition to being a scoring threat with intensity that our second unit needs. He has won me over as a good facilitator of the offense. Lance is a lot stronger than I first thought and has improved his defense a lot.

Slick Pinkham
02-07-2013, 12:09 AM
Why are people assuming that PG made a huge leap this year solely because he is guarding SFs now, and Lance made a huge leap only because he is starting? If both were thrust into the large roles that they have now a season ago, IMO they would not have been ready for it. Both have matured and gained confidence. It doesn't mean they have stumbled upon the one and only niche they can be used effectively. If the 3 players are splitting 96 minutes of playing time for SG & SF, all combinations will be used.

Nuntius
02-07-2013, 12:16 AM
Time to post some stats, people:

From the Indiana vs Miami game per ESPN:


Paul George was the primary defender on 14 of LeBron James' 25 plays Friday, and James had success on those plays. He was 7-for-10 when guarded by George, with five of those seven field goals coming inside 10 feet.

Here's the recap link -> http://espn.go.com/nba/recap?id=400278405

Also, let's look at some shooting splits:

Paul George at home: 47.1 FG%, 47.9 3p%

Paul George on the road: 38.6 FG%, 29.6 3p%

Lance Stephenson at home: 51.7 FG%, 43.9 3p%

Lanc Stephenson on the road: 44.7 FG%, 29.4 3p%

Danny Granger at home (last season): 42.1 FG%, 37.4 3p%

Danny Granger on the road (same): 40.3 FG%, 37.8 3p%

Here are the links of the shooting splits -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/georgpa01/shooting/2013/ (Paul George), http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stephla01/shooting/2013/ (Lance Stephenson), http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/grangda01/shooting/2012/ (Danny Granger),

Simply put, young players get a tremendous psychological boost at home. That's why we're amazing at home.

On the flip side, young players are not that good away from home. That's why we're not that great on the road. But I'm not worried. PG and Lance are still so young. I have no doubt in my mind that both players will become consistently good both at home and on the road.

But for the time being. We need a consistent 3 point threat. It frees up space and gives more scoring opportunities to our bigs.

It's that simple. I don't care about who starts, to be honest. I just want the players to be run the way they should be run :)

Nuntius
02-07-2013, 12:21 AM
Why are people assuming that PG made a huge leap this year solely because he is guarding SFs now

Because it fits the "Granger is holding back PG so he should be traded" argument.

*astrisk*
02-07-2013, 12:46 AM
I'm gonna keep going back and forth on this one. Today, I'm thinking I want to see Danny get back into the swing of things coming off the bench and taking shots away from DJ, OJ and Tyler. where he can reacclimate himself to NBA basketball and it won't cost us production out of our Starting 5.

If Danny comes off the bench he can work on getting his conditioning and "chuck" his shot back into rhythm. Any offensive production would be welcomed out of that group...

Idk. Like I said, I'm on the fence...

15th parallel
02-07-2013, 12:58 AM
I really don't get it why we underestimate Granger so much here.

Look, there's no argument that PG plays a better all-around game than Granger. But nobody can't deny the fact that Danny is still the better offensive player that PG unless proven otherwise.

If there are people worry about West because he plays well with Lance, let me remind you that West played well last year with Granger, in fact the last year's starting 5 was one of the best, if not the best, in the league that season. I have read that somewhere but can't find it now so correct me if I'm wrong here.

And to say our offense will be worse without Lance, let me remind you too that the Pacers team have a better offense last season with Granger as the starter.

And for the defense, was our defense worse with a PG-Granger combo than with a PG-Lance combo? It's sad on Granger's part because he was a better defender last year and yet many here concluded he cannot be the same player after coming back. And as for Lance, yes he has played great defense against Wade, but George did too at some point. How certain is it that Lance can have the same success against Wade come playoff time when you know he has the ability to torch defenders no matter how good they were when his back is against the wall? And have you seen how good Lance's defense was against Marco Belinelli?

There's no problem if Granger plays coming off the bench until he has gotten used to playing NBA-level games. But to say that putting Lance on the bench as the 6th man and bringing back Granger back into the starting lineup will negatively affect what's going on with the team is delusional at this point until proven otherwise. Last season was a proof of how solid this team (5th in the league last season, mind you) was with Danny Granger as one of the starting wings, and until what others say about the negative impact of Danny actually happens, he still owns the starting spot.

PG-24
02-07-2013, 06:13 AM
PGs success isnt because hes playing "SF," its because he worked his tail off. Whether he plays the 2 or the 3. He'll be fine. Granger should and will start and it has nothing to do with stunting Pauls growth. Our starting 5 last year was near the top of the league in +/- when they were on the court together. Granger and Lance run the same cuts off entry passes, there really isnt a difference between the 2 and 3 in our system.

Defensively, nothing will change. PG will guard the best player and well adjust accordingly. Pretty simple. And as stated before, the only team that has a huge mismatch at 2 guard vs Granger is Miami, and well adjust against them too. We can probably expect PG to be on Rose as well, so lets not act like the defensive responsibilities wont be shifted game by game.

1984
02-07-2013, 08:03 AM
Vogel already confirmed in a post game that Danny will ease back into the lineup, but he will begin on the bench.

King Tuts Tomb
02-07-2013, 08:17 AM
Long term Granger will be starting, I have no doubt. Without Granger this team is not a top tier title contender. With Granger, depending on what we get, there's a chance they could be.

As for whether Granger will throw off the chemistry, I don't see it. Danny is a smart guy, he knows a couple deep playoff runs scoring 16 a game is worth way more to his next contract than scoring 20ppg in two second round outs.

pizza guy
02-07-2013, 09:16 AM
I came into this thread not really knowing which way to think, and after reading seven pages, I have firmly decided that I still don't know.

In general, I think Danny is a better player than Lance. But, I think Danny would fit better in the second unit. When it comes down to the end of the game, Danny will be on the court.

I think the strength of this team, all year, has been the versatility. Having Danny back is only going to make that aspect stronger. With the talent we have, we will be able to match up with anyone in about three different ways. Overall, this is a good problem. We know that either way, our sixth man is going to be very good.

We will just have to see what Vogel works out.

CJ Jones
02-07-2013, 11:39 AM
They don't get it Kstat. I've failed many times trying to explain why it's beneficial for Paul to play SF. All I hear hear is " it doesn't matter what position he plays because in our offensive scheme a wing's a wing." And while that may be true, they don't factor in the dozen or so other reasons Paul benefits from playing his natural position. I'll list a few that get overlooked:

* playing the 3 allows him to conserve energy because he doesn't chase quicker players around, and he doesn't have to fight threw nearly as many screens

* playing the 3 allows him to use his speed and quickness advantage against nearly every player at his position

* playing the 3 allows him to rebound more

* playing the 3 makes him an an above average ball handler and playmaker. At SG he's average

I'll stop there. Funny thing is I called all this a year ago in one of my first posts. I said he'd defend, score, and rebound better at the 3 and got laughed at.It doesn't surprise me that some of those same people are now saying it's just a coincidence he broke out at the 3.

pacergod2
02-07-2013, 11:58 AM
I bet Granger makes his debut Friday.

BillS
02-07-2013, 12:06 PM
Wow. We have arguments here like

- Don't look at the effectiveness of the offense in the past with Danny because we know that Danny will not be as good as any given year in the past based on his past performance.
- Lance will not only stop developing if he is moved to the top offensive option from the bench, he will regress.
- The Pacers' starting fives offense has been just fine all season, we don't need another scorer there.
- Danny is a bad or at best merely average defender.
- Without Danny, this team was predicted by certain people to be no better than a fifth seed or even as bad as 3rd in the Central. Now, clearly they are playing well so that if Danny comes BACK they will drop to no better than a fifth seed.

I just have to think that when you have a guy who has been AT LEAST one of your two best players for the last 5 years you don't throw him over the fence when you have an offense that still struggles against certain matchups. Particularly when he and his "rival" play such different games and therefore can be made complementary to one another.

If he comes back and the starting lineup suffers, then you adjust. But assuming out of the gate that Danny is going to be a shadow of his former self (which was somehow never that good to begin with) is ridiculous.

I mean, by the same token, people are pretty much assuming DRose will still be an MVP-level player when returning from ACL surgery and would therefore NEVER recommend that a Bulls team that has been pretty successful without him would do anything but plonk him right back into his role. This doesn't somehow mean that I think Danny is as good as DRose, just that you don't assume what a guy's recovery is like until you put him back where he was when he left.

Sollozzo
02-07-2013, 12:13 PM
I bet Granger makes his debut Friday.

Tomorrow? When we haven't heard anything about him in (correct me if I'm wrong) six days? I wouldn't bet on it.

Slick Pinkham
02-07-2013, 12:24 PM
* playing the 3 allows him to conserve energy because he doesn't chase quicker players around, and he doesn't have to fight threw nearly as many screens

He guards the best opposing wing, no matter what, so he is chasing exactly the same player around. Do we have to keep repeating this fact?


* playing the 3 allows him to use his speed and quickness advantage against nearly every player at his position

playing the 2 allows him to use his huge length advantage, with no speed disadvantage either, against nearly every player at his position, whereas some 3s he has to guard are much heavier and stronger (see LBJ).


* playing the 3 allows him to rebound more

His defensive rebounding numbers should be the same per-minute once Danny comes back, since (again) he is guarding and boxing out the opposition's best wing player, same as always.


* playing the 3 makes him an an above average ball handler and playmaker. At SG he's average

Playing the 2 on offense should greatly help him as a passer and playmaker, with a huge size advantage over the man guarding him.

I'll stop there too.

pacerfaninga
02-07-2013, 12:27 PM
Wow. We have arguments here like

- Don't look at the effectiveness of the offense in the past with Danny because we know that Danny will not be as good as any given year in the past based on his past performance.
- Lance will not only stop developing if he is moved to the top offensive option from the bench, he will regress.
- The Pacers' starting fives offense has been just fine all season, we don't need another scorer there.
- Danny is a bad or at best merely average defender.
- Without Danny, this team was predicted by certain people to be no better than a fifth seed or even as bad as 3rd in the Central. Now, clearly they are playing well so that if Danny comes BACK they will drop to no better than a fifth seed.

I just have to think that when you have a guy who has been AT LEAST one of your two best players for the last 5 years you don't throw him over the fence when you have an offense that still struggles against certain matchups. Particularly when he and his "rival" play such different games and therefore can be made complementary to one another.

If he comes back and the starting lineup suffers, then you adjust. But assuming out of the gate that Danny is going to be a shadow of his former self (which was somehow never that good to begin with) is ridiculous.

I mean, by the same token, people are pretty much assuming DRose will still be an MVP-level player when returning from ACL surgery and would therefore NEVER recommend that a Bulls team that has been pretty successful without him would do anything but plonk him right back into his role. This doesn't somehow mean that I think Danny is as good as DRose, just that you don't assume what a guy's recovery is like until you put him back where he was when he left.

Amen! Not sure I could have said it better. I agree, Granger is not on Rose's level but no one is mentioning have Rose come off of the bench even though the Bulls are only a game out of third place. It makes me shake my head to see how lowly people hold Granger. The guy has been nothing but great to the organization and the fans. He can and only will help this team.

vnzla81
02-07-2013, 12:34 PM
Nobody is suggesting for Rose to come off the bench because Rose doesn't have somebody playing at his position that is kicking a**, huge difference.

Hicks
02-07-2013, 12:40 PM
I'm hoping he sees some minutes on Wednesday, but if we don't get a positive update on him in the next few days, I'm going to start looking to the end of the month / beginning of March.

Trader Joe
02-07-2013, 12:42 PM
I'm hoping he sees some minutes on Wednesday, but if we don't get a positive update on him in the next few days, I'm going to start looking to the end of the month / beginning of March.

Grady said today to expect him back Monday or Wednesday pretty much for sure.

pacergod2
02-07-2013, 12:49 PM
Tomorrow? When we haven't heard anything about him in (correct me if I'm wrong) six days? I wouldn't bet on it.

Remember that we never hear much about what is really going on. Trades, definitive recovery timeframes, etc.

Also, we know that Danny will probably only play about 10-15 minutes in his first game back. It is a perfect opportunity to get him a few minutes and see how his knee reacts with two days rest afterward. The next game is Monday and the last game before the break is Wednesday. If all goes well, we would likely see Danny get a good 20 minutes in the second and third game back, with a little less rest. Then we give his knee a whole week to recover and do tests and see how he works through practice. I really don't think it's too soon. If he doesn't respond well to ten minutes, you just let him continue to rest for those extra 11 days.

Plus, the Fieldhouse will be packed Friday night and it is the best opportunity we will have to give Granger the proper respect he deserves from our fanbase. His loyalty doesn't go unnoticed. Is he the same player he was athletically? No. Is he a better skilled, more efficient player, who is the heart and soul of what this team is? Absolutely. This is secondary to the health of his knee obviously, but the timing potential is too perfect and if I am the coach, I want my cornerstone player to get his due respect. Plus, his return gives a huge boost to our team's confidence and that kind of an ovation can go a long way towards improving the aura of our franchise.

Since86
02-07-2013, 12:51 PM
Pacers are probably going to need a little pick-me-up for tomorrow. They're in prime position for a mental/phsyical/emotional let down.

Ace E.Anderson
02-07-2013, 12:55 PM
* playing the 3 allows him to conserve energy because he doesn't chase quicker players around, and he doesn't have to fight threw nearly as many screens
1. He guards the opposing teams best wing no matter what. He's guarded James Harden, Joe Johnson, Andre Iguodala (playing next to Galignari) JR Smith (w/o Melo) etc. This normally leaves Lance to guard a bigger SF which he has struggled with at times. So with Paul guardng the best perimeter player no matter what, you'll basically have Lance trying to guard a bigger SF just as much as you'd have Danny guarding a smaller, quicker opponent.

2. It's not like teams don't run their SF's through screens as well. In fact we have seen it with some of our recent opponents (Kyle Korver, Luol Deng)


playing the 3 allows him to use his speed and quickness advantage against nearly every player at his position
Someone else already explained, but at the 2 Paul has a tremendous size/length advantage. At the 3 yes Paul has some speed and quickness advantages, but he doesn't exactly get most of his points from utilizing that advantage constantly. A lot of his points come from 3's, transition, and and pull up J's.


playing the 3 allows him to rebound more
He's averaging 2 rebs more per game this season. But he's also playing nearly 8 more minutes per game. So he's rebounding around the same rate.

Just my opinion.

Hicks
02-07-2013, 01:02 PM
Grady said today to expect him back Monday or Wednesday pretty much for sure.

Hmm. Interesting. I'd like to hear a clip of that to read into his delivery/tone to try to gauge his confidence level on that. Hopefully he's right on.

Slick Pinkham
02-07-2013, 01:02 PM
We may indeed be better off with Danny coming off the bench, but remember when the whole objective of last summer was to keep an incredibly efficient offensive & defensive starting 5 together, while upgrading the bench? Do we give up on that goal that fast? If so, why? Our 2011-2012 starting 5 would now be better if DG is back to his normal self, due to PG's maturity & confidence and West's improved health, which overcomes Roy's struggles IMO. Then Lance alone upgrades the bench, if he plays starter's minutes, never mind the contributions of Mahinmi and OJ. I know a lot of people still envision lance as a point guard. Going back to the bench, he may even get a crack at that, on nights when Augustin isn't hitting his shots.

pumpk35
02-07-2013, 01:02 PM
They don't get it Kstat. I've failed many times trying to explain why it's beneficial for Paul to play SF. All I hear hear is " it doesn't matter what position he plays because in our offensive scheme a wing's a wing." And while that may be true, they don't factor in the dozen or so other reasons Paul benefits from playing his natural position. I'll list a few that get overlooked:

* playing the 3 allows him to conserve energy because he doesn't chase quicker players around, and he doesn't have to fight threw nearly as many screens

* playing the 3 allows him to use his speed and quickness advantage against nearly every player at his position

* playing the 3 allows him to rebound more

* playing the 3 makes him an an above average ball handler and playmaker. At SG he's average

I'll stop there. Funny thing is I called all this a year ago in one of my first posts. I said he'd defend, score, and rebound better at the 3 and got laughed at.It doesn't surprise me that some of those same people are now saying it's just a coincidence he broke out at the 3.

Point 1: lance isn't any better at it.
Points 2/4 are same arguement/concept and its invalid because he's not a primary ballhandler. And at SG, He's got a 2-7 inch height advantage every night.
Point 3: why does his rebounding make a difference? Roy and David are fine, so is danny. You're knitpicking.

Hicks
02-07-2013, 01:04 PM
Pacers are probably going to need a little pick-me-up for tomorrow. They're in prime position for a mental/phsyical/emotional let down.

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/Cocaine_So_Much_Cocaine.jpg

OlBlu
02-07-2013, 02:33 PM
Nobody is suggesting for Rose to come off the bench because Rose doesn't have somebody playing at his position that is kicking a**, huge difference.

This is a little like the Steve Young/Joe Montana situation. Montana got hurt and played at an all pro level. Montana never got back in the lineup....... It would be best to just keep Granger out of PG's way and bring him off the bench. That would also be better for Lance and better for the team. This team can't play much better than it is already without Granger. Bringing him back in will only screw up the chemistry it took half a season to build. It is the wrong time for Granger.......:cool: ...

Anthem
02-07-2013, 02:56 PM
* playing the 3 allows him to conserve energy because he doesn't chase quicker players around, and he doesn't have to fight threw nearly as many screens
Where's it written that 2-guards use screens and small forwards don't? Also, I'm very intrigued by this "conserve energy" concept. One of the major knocks on Danny was that instead of going all-out on defense and offense, he would sometimes conserve energy on D in order to blaze a trail on O. That's a major critique. And now the worry is that Paul won't be able to do that enough?


* playing the 3 allows him to use his speed and quickness advantage against nearly every player at his position
Quickness is good, but height and power is great. Paul is fast enough to guard point guards, so he's definitely fast enough to guard shooting guards. But think about what it means to be able to shoot over every player that guards him.


* playing the 3 allows him to rebound more
Why? What about our system would make him rebound less playing next to Danny instead of Lance?


* playing the 3 makes him an an above average ball handler and playmaker. At SG he's average
But in either case, his actual ball-handling ability doesn't change. So is it just a matter of comparison, or what? Is it your position that he can take Deng off the dribble, but not Rip Hamilton? That he can take LeBron off the dribble, but not Wade?

AesopRockOn
02-07-2013, 03:57 PM
Good thread you guys. I don't understand the idea that Danny will have regressed. Other than conditioning, he should be about the same. I mean, he's never really relied on athleticism to compete. On D, he has always been laterally slow, making up for it with wiry strength and great timing. I think we will have to "hide" him on D just as much as we had to before the time off, meaning not much. Also, Danny will play over Lance without question at the end of games due to foul shooting. (Lance needs to pick it up from the line if he wants to consistently finish games in the playoffs.)

I think some of you are playing out the rest of the season and playoffs as if we'll be playing Miami in the last five minutes for the rest of the year. Guarding Bron and Wade will continue to be a ***** (for every team in the league). If we play the Bulls and PG has to cover Rose, we'll be glad to have Danny on Deng. Same with the Deron, Johnson, Wallace combo. Not to mention, if we play the Hawks, Danny's got David's back on Smith. (If you think we would lose to the Knicks because of the JR Smith matchup, holy ****, I'll take those odds.)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned leaving Lance in at the end of games and leaving Hill on the bench. (Not saying it should happen, but I could see the argument for it defensively as much as the Hibbert-less small lineup for offensive purposes.)

CJ Jones
02-07-2013, 05:57 PM
[QUOTE]He guards the best opposing wing, no matter what, so he is chasing exactly the same player around. Do we have to keep repeating this fact?

Point is he 's better at defending SFs . He won't be spending nearly as much time on the court guarding them when he's playing alongside Danny. So no he won't be guarding the same players. Danny can't keep up with very many 2 guards



playing the 2 allows him to use his huge length advantage, with no speed disadvantage either, against nearly every player at his position, whereas some 3s he has to guard are much heavier and stronger (see LBJ).

That's a very backwards way to develop a player. We shouldn't force our best player to learn how to play a power game when he's just now figuring out how to use his speed and quickness against guys his height. Why make him adjust when he's the our best player and All-Star? I want him to comfortable, and he's said himself he feels more comfortable at the 3 because of matcups. People seem to forget that.




His defensive rebounding numbers should be the same per-minute once Danny comes back, since (again) he is guarding and boxing out the opposition's best wing player, same as always. [/

Again, he'll be guarding SGs more often so not only will he be in worse rebounding positions, he won't able to keep the opposing SF off the boards.


[QUOTE]
Playing the 2 on offense should greatly help him as a passer and playmaker, with a huge size advantage over the man guarding him.

Disagree. One of these days maybe, but not right now. He's not a good enough post player.


I'll stop there too.

Please do.

Kstat
02-07-2013, 06:05 PM
I really have nothing more to add here, except that I think I've gotten an extremely good feel for this team. I think last year's Danny granger , while being a better offensive player, is not nearly as well suited to play in the starting 5 as Stephenson. I think he will eventually start, and I think eventually that fact is going to bear out.

I have never had any love for lance Stephenson. That's not a secret. And I've always liked Danny granger.

And I think replacing him in the starting 5 for granger would be a mistake. I think nostalgia is clouding better judgement here.

If you're going to rely heavily on defense, you can't always compromise that because you found a better offensive player.

mattie
02-07-2013, 06:24 PM
It's not nostalgia clouding judgement it's just the numbers.

There are some that fantasize about the way the game should be played. And then those who simply require results. Those who fantasize think pointguards have to play like Chris Paul, Shooting guards must be ball dominant ball handlers, (scoring efficiency be damned), Small forwards are 6 foot 8 and taller (ability be damned), and so on.

Forget that the only rule that has ever been important is the results. That's it. Put the ball in the basket. If you have too tall wings that can defend and shoot anywhere on the court, it's probably better than one wing who can shoot and defend to go along with a guard who averages EIGHT POINTS A GAME.

It's a ridiculous agenda to support your basketball ideal. "Paul George's a small forward, that's why he's playing good." Or maybe he's just a 22 year old wing who's finally growing up? No imposssible. Wait let's ask him: Hey Paul, which do you prefer the 3 or the 2? "It doesn't matter." Oh it doesn't matter? But wait, you averaged a STUNNING .5 rebounds per 36 more this year rebounding than you did last year!!! (we know that massive improvement has nothing to do with a third year player improving) Obviously you won't be able to rebound at the two position, even though you've been defending two guards all season. (Forget that fact, this doesn't play along with my stupid narrative).

Fantasize all you want about how positions work in the NBA folks. The rest of us are going to watch Danny get healthy, start along the rest of his teammates and the Pacers will develop into a juggernaut offense. Oh and I'm going on a limb to suggest Lance doesn't suddenly regress to a non-contributor.

Kstat
02-07-2013, 06:35 PM
Again, Im not the one with a dog in this fight. If it makes you feel better to accuse me of having some silly bias based on position terminology, so be it.

If I were shoehorning every player in the NBA by position (which is a hilarious accusation, given thy I've been here for 10 year), I would have a problem with George hill running the point. But that doesn't fit your little rant, so let's look past it.

Stats in this case don't lie, but the only stats you're looking at are individual points and rebounds. It much more
Complicated than that.

mattie
02-07-2013, 06:40 PM
Again, Im not the one with a dog in this fight. If it makes you feel better to accuse me of having some silly bias based on position terminology, so be it.

If I were shoehorning every player in the NBA by position (which is a hilarious accusation, given thy I've been here for 10 year), I would have a problem with George hill running the point. But that doesn't fit your little rant, so let's look past it.

Stats in this case don't lie, but the only stats you're looking at are individual points and rebounds. It much more
Complicated than that.

No, I'm talking about last years top 10 offense. It worked. That simple.

If someone can prove how my idea is faulty that would be fine. No one has brought any evidence other than earnest pleas to believe in their vision of the NBA.

Anthem
02-07-2013, 06:43 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned leaving Lance in at the end of games and leaving Hill on the bench.
Hill's had more game-winners than any other Pacer this year, though. Dude is pretty clutch.

mattie
02-07-2013, 06:44 PM
And I am talking about silly position terminology. Because that is all that is being talked about.

I'm for putting the best players on the court.

Others are arguing NOT putting the best players on the court because their positions are too similar to play together. Seriously, for ****s sake please show me how I can be wrong so I can just drop it. I'd love it.

Edit - and I'll eat my crow. I have no problem admitting everytime I said something really dumb. It happens a lot. So I've become quite comfortable with it.

Kstat
02-07-2013, 06:54 PM
And I am talking about silly position terminology. Because that is all that is being talked about.

I'm for putting the best players on the court.

Others are arguing NOT putting the best players on the court because their positions are too similar to play together. Seriously, for ****s sake please show me how I can be wrong so I can just drop it. I'd love it.
I only used the positional terminology to make it easier to communicate.

From an analytical standpoint, this is a far different team than last season, and I believe them to be a far more dangerous playoff team.

Stephenson compliments Hibbert, West, and George both offensively and defensively better than Granger. He's a better defensive compliment, and on offense he's a low-usage player, meaning Hibbert and West have the all in their hands more often and in better spots on the floor, which keeps them better involved in the game. I do not at all think it's a coincidence that David West is playing much more consistently now as opposed t last year. Yes, he's healthier, but also more engaged.

Granger supports the flow of the team by assisting a very weak bench and putting up points. The overall offense would be better with him, but at the expense of the defense, which IMO disrupts what has worked tremendously for them all season.

I have no bias here. I'm simply stating what I see working. The Pacers win games because they don't have any defensive weaknesses to exploit. If teams see Granger as a defensive weakness, that constitutes a crack in the armor, and his scoring output is not going to offset that.

mattie
02-07-2013, 07:00 PM
I only used the positional terminology to make it easier to communicate.

From an analytical standpoint, this is a far different team than last season, and I believe them to be a far more dangerous playoff team.

Stephenson compliments Hibbert, West, and George both offensively and defensively better than Granger. He's a better defensive compliment, and on offense he's a low-usage player, meaning Hibbert and West have the all in their hands more often and in better spots on the floor, which keeps them better involved in the game. I do not at all think it's a coincidence that David West is playing much more consistently now as opposed t last year. Yes, he's healthier, but also more engaged.

Granger supports the flow of the team by assisting a very weak bench and putting up points. The overall offense would be better with him, but at the expense of the defense, which IMO disrupts what has worked tremendously for them all season.

I have no bias here. I'm simply stating what I see working. The Pacers win games because they don't have any defensive weaknesses to exploit. If teams see Granger as a defensive weakness, that constitutes a crack in the armor, and his scoring output is not going to offset that.

See, I completely get that. I understand that, and I know there is no set rule to how an offense should run. They should simply support each other the best way they can as you eloquenly stated. And theoretically, I actually agree that Lance in the lineup actually should be better! I completely agree. But the numbers don't back it up.

But here's the thing. I think last year's five man unit, was something like the second or third best five man unit in the league. They absolutely blitzed the rest of the league as Zach Lowe has said on numerous occasions. So while this years five man unit may be prettier, according to the numbers I'm not sure if they're better. (someone will have to compare the numbers for me, I'm going off of memory). <--- That is why I am having such a horrible time understanding why Granger in the lineup will not be better.

(I won't comment on the defense. It's a no brainer the defense is better this season. I'd suggest PG's massive improvement and Roy's massive improvement are the cause, but I have absolutely no proof)

CJ Jones
02-07-2013, 07:03 PM
Edit - and I'll eat my crow. I have no problem admitting everytime I said something really dumb. It happens a lot. So I've become quite comfortable with it.

You can start with you're incessant whining that Paul George is too weak to defend SFs...

Kstat
02-07-2013, 07:04 PM
See, I completely get that. I understand that, and I know there is no set rule to how an offense should run. They should simply support each other the best way they can as you eloquenly stated.

But here's the thing. I think last year's five man unit, was something like the second or third best five man unit in the league. They absolutely blitzed the rest of the league as Zach Lowe has said on numerous occasions. So while this years five man unit may be prettier, according to the numbers I'm not sure if they're better. (someone will have to compare the numbers for me, I'm going off of memory).

(I won't comment on the defense. It's a no brainer the defense is better this season. I'd suggest PG's massive improvement and Roy's massive improvement are the cause, but I have absolutely no proof)

The Pacers had a very good starting 5 last season, and their bench was their ultimate downfall, along with the fact Miami overpowered their defense when it mattered.

This year the pacers still have a very good 5, but it's a better defensive unit, and the bench remains a sore spot. The logical move here is to let Granger play the Manu Ginobili role and score points on a unit that struggles to get anything done offensively. Scoring points has always been what he does best.

That's not to say he will never play with the starters, or finish games. But your starters set the tone for the rest of the team.

mattie
02-07-2013, 07:07 PM
The Pacers had a very good starting 5 last season, and their bench was their ultimate downfall, along with the fact Miami overpowered their defense when it mattered.

This year the pacers still have a very good 5, but it's a better defensive unit, and the bench remains a sore spot. The logical move here is to let Granger play the Manu Ginobili role and score points on a unit that struggles to get anything done offensively. Scoring points has always been what he does best.

That's not to say he will never play with the starters, or finish games. But your starters set the tone for the rest of the team.

I will completely agree that strategy wise, you may want to go with a weaker starting lineup so you can prop up the bench. It wouldn't be my choice, but that's strategy, and I'm no coach. Or smart enough to ever be one.

Note - my choice would be to have the best starting five play as many minutes as possible staggering their subs so they could be on the court as much as possible.

mattie
02-07-2013, 07:08 PM
You can start with you're incessant whining that Paul George is too weak to defend SFs...

I said he was last year. And I was right. The numbers backed it up. Amazingly enough, unlike most really young players in the league (we never see this), PG put on a lot of muscle in the offseason and his performance against 3's has dramatically changed. His defense on the whole has changed. He was good at times last season. He's great this season.

Ace E.Anderson
02-07-2013, 07:08 PM
I only used the positional terminology to make it easier to communicate.

From an analytical standpoint, this is a far different team than last season, and I believe them to be a far more dangerous playoff team.

Stephenson compliments Hibbert, West, and George both offensively and defensively better than Granger. He's a better defensive compliment, and on offense he's a low-usage player, meaning Hibbert and West have the all in their hands more often and in better spots on the floor, which keeps them better involved in the game. I do not at all think it's a coincidence that David West is playing much more consistently now as opposed t last year. Yes, he's healthier, but also more engaged.

Granger supports the flow of the team by assisting a very weak bench and putting up points. The overall offense would be better with him, but at the expense of the defense, which IMO disrupts what has worked tremendously for them all season.

I have no bias here. I'm simply stating what I see working. The Pacers win games because they don't have any defensive weaknesses to exploit. If teams see Granger as a defensive weakness, that constitutes a crack in the armor, and his scoring output is not going to offset that.

Lance is not a better defender than Granger. On the ball, he can be somewhat disruptive AT TIMES, but he still fouls jump shooters, loses guys in transition, doesn't know when to go under/over a screen, etc. he's young so these issues can be alleviated, but to suggest that Lance is really good defensively and Danny is really bad--to the point that he's going to be "exploited" is an incorrect accusation imo

cgg
02-07-2013, 07:09 PM
http://www.82games.com/1213/1213IND2.HTM
http://www.82games.com/1112/1112IND2.HTM

Last years starters .97 on def with hill, 1.00 on def with collison. 1.09 and 1.12 of off.

This years starters 1.00 on def, 1.08 on off.

Anthem
02-07-2013, 07:12 PM
The Pacers had a very good starting 5 last season, and their bench was their ultimate downfall, along with the fact Miami overpowered their defense when it mattered.

This year the pacers still have a very good 5, but it's a better defensive unit, and the bench remains a sore spot. The logical move here is to let Granger play the Manu Ginobili role and score points on a unit that struggles to get anything done offensively.
No, the logical move is to stop switching back and forth between the bench and the starters as a platoon. Let Mahinmi get minutes with West and Tyler get minutes with Roy. Heck, let Mahinmi get minutes with Roy! Play Granger with Stephenson, and Granger with Paul George, and Stephenson with Paul George. Get ready to throw a bunch of different looks out there, because we've got a really flexible roster and should be planning to take advantage of that.

mattie
02-07-2013, 07:14 PM
http://www.82games.com/1213/1213IND2.HTM
http://www.82games.com/1112/1112IND2.HTM

Last years starters .97 on def with hill, 1.00 on def with collison. 1.09 and 1.12 of off.

This years starters 1.00 on def, 1.08 on off.

So everyone, can we agree with Granger in the lineup, the Pacers will be better on offense, and better on defense?

If you'd like to argue you'd still have Granger on the bench so he can be a scoring weapon, that'd make sense but I think we can probably put to bed the idea that the Pacers will be better in anyway with Lance in the lineup instead of Granger...

CJ Jones
02-07-2013, 07:29 PM
I said he was last year. And I was right. The numbers backed it up. Amazingly enough, unlike most really young players in the league (we never see this), PG put on a lot of muscle in the offseason and his performance against 3's has dramatically changed. His defense on the whole has changed. He was good at times last season. He's great this season.

Yeah okay, I'm sure the fact that he only guarded the best players at that position last year didn't have any affect on those numbers. Smh you and your numbers.

Arguing with you reminds me of a line from one of my favorite tunes... " pardon me brotha, while you stand in your glory, I know you won't mind, if I tell the whole story..."

mattie
02-07-2013, 07:31 PM
Yeah okay, I'm sure the fact that he only guarded the best players at that position last year didn't have any affect on those numbers. Smh you and your numbers.

Arguing with you reminds me of the chorus from one of my favorite tunes... " pardon me brotha, while you stand in your glory, I hope you don't mind, if I tell the whole story..."

He got beat last year, he's not this year. So when I say he couldn't last year and he can this year I think my statement was correct.

Meanwhile, the numbers I've presented have disprovent nearly every theory you've presented. =)

AesopRockOn
02-07-2013, 07:31 PM
Hill's had more game-winners than any other Pacer this year, though. Dude is pretty clutch.

Definitely true, which is why I added the note about Hill being in for offense and Lance in for defense as possibilities.


I think that some posters on both sides of this issue are putting things in more concrete terms than they need to be.

OlBlu
02-07-2013, 07:33 PM
So everyone, can we agree with Granger in the lineup, the Pacers will be better on offense, and better on defense?

If you'd like to argue you'd still have Granger on the bench so he can be a scoring weapon, that'd make sense but I think we can probably put to bed the idea that the Pacers will be better in anyway with Lance in the lineup instead of Granger...

No, I do not agree. The Pacers go down several notches on defense with Granger in the lineup. He is a great shooter but we get more ball movement with Lance as the SG and George as the SF. We don't even know if Granger can play at all....:cool: ...

CJ Jones
02-07-2013, 07:49 PM
Meanwhile, the numbers I've presented have disprovent nearly every theory you've presented. =)

If you say so, brotha.

Banta
02-07-2013, 11:07 PM
http://www.82games.com/1213/1213IND2.HTM
http://www.82games.com/1112/1112IND2.HTM

Last years starters .97 on def with hill, 1.00 on def with collison. 1.09 and 1.12 of off.

This years starters 1.00 on def, 1.08 on off.

Are those aggregates for the starters or just for when they were all on the floor together? Important variable.

Nuntius
02-07-2013, 11:29 PM
You can start with you're incessant whining that Paul George is too weak to defend SFs...

I'll repeat it then:


Paul George was the primary defender on 14 of LeBron James' 25 plays Friday, and James had success on those plays. He was 7-for-10 when guarded by George, with five of those seven field goals coming inside 10 feet.

http://espn.go.com/nba/recap?id=400278405

Paul is, of course, an excellent defender. He knows how to play D, he wants to do it and he seems to enjoy being a defensive stopper.

Still, that didn't change the fact that LeBron manhandled him in the post in our last game. 70% shooting when guarded by PG and 5 field goals coming inside 10 feet is not what one would consider a good defensive performance.

I cannot fault PG, of course. LeBron is a freak. No SF can stop him in the post.

In the playoffs, if we try to match up Wade with Lance and LeBron with PG then they will keep posting us up.

Nuntius
02-07-2013, 11:37 PM
The logical move here is to let Granger play the Manu Ginobili role and score points on a unit that struggles to get anything done offensively. Scoring points has always been what he does best.


Manu Ginobili wasn't only a scorer, though. Yes, he would score in bunches but he would also facilitate and change the pace. Manu would involve everyone playing alongside him.

Why? Because he is big guard with excellent court vision and good scoring ability.

Granger is not a facilitator. Yes, he would score in bunches in the second unit but he wouldn't involve everyone else playing alongside him. That's not his talent.

Lance, on the other hand, can both involve everyone else and change the pace of a game. He's a guy that can create runs in his own. He can both score and facilitate. That's something that Granger cannot do.

Which is why I think that Lance fits the 6th man role a lot better than Granger.

Kstat
02-08-2013, 12:35 AM
...except lance isn't a scorer.

3rdStrike
02-08-2013, 12:38 AM
Lance, on the other hand, can both involve everyone else and change the pace of a game. He's a guy that can create runs in his own. He can both score and facilitate. That's something that Granger cannot do.

Which is why I think that Lance fits the 6th man role a lot better than Granger.

I agree. I am very worried about the current chemistry being disrupted when Granger returns, but at the same time his game just doesn't (and probably never will) translate to coming off the bench. I don't know where the minutes are going to come from, but somehow Lance has to get at least 27 mpg, IMO.

CableKC
02-08-2013, 01:14 AM
I don't know where the minutes are going to come from, but somehow Lance has to get at least 27 mpg, IMO.
They will come at the expense of DJ and Hansbrough.

PG - GH 30 mpg / DJ 18 mpg
SG - PG 13 mpg / Lance 28 mpg / GH 2 mpg / Young_Green_OJ 5 mpg
SF - Granger 29 mpg / PG 19 mpg
PF - West 33 mpg / Hansbrough 12 mpg / Granger 3 mpg
C - Hibbert 29 mpg / Mahinmi 19 mpg

GH - 32 mpg
PG - 32 mpg
Granger - 32 mpg
West - 32 mpg
Hibbert - 29 mpg

Lance - 28 mpg
Mahinmi - 19 mpg
DJ - 18 mpg
Hansbrough - 12 mpg
Young, Green or OJ - 5 mpg

Young, Green or OJ would only get any minutes based on whether there is a need to give more minutes to GH, PG or Granger.

xIndyFan
02-08-2013, 01:22 AM
...except lance isn't a scorer.

I'm not sure this is true. He's been a scorer throughout his basketball career. IMO, he has the ability to be a scorer, but that is not his role on the Pacers. Like all good players, he's done what the team needed him to do.

Now you may be right. He has not been a scorer at the NBA level, but neither has Paul George before this year. I am looking forward to seeing how he does with more scoring responsibility.

xIndyFan
02-08-2013, 01:24 AM
I agree. I am very worried about the current chemistry being disrupted when Granger returns, but at the same time his game just doesn't (and probably never will) translate to coming off the bench. I don't know where the minutes are going to come from, but somehow Lance has to get at least 27 mpg, IMO.

There are 96 minutes available at the wing positions. With a 3 man rotation, that is 32 min per game for each guy. Unless both Danny and Paul start playing huge minutes, there will be minutes for all of them.

Peck
02-08-2013, 01:27 AM
Whatever is best for the team.

Nuntius
02-08-2013, 02:06 AM
...except lance isn't a scorer.

Well, he is scoring 8.3 PPG in 7.1 FGA (48.1 FG%, 55.1 TS%) this season.

So, since he will get more FGA due to being the second unit's offensive focus I expect his scoring to increase. I certainly believe that Lance can score.

The one thing that's troubling me in that case is that the majority of Lance's baskets so far have been assisted. 65% of his baskets were assisted, to be precise. In 3 pointers this mark increases to 90%. (here's the shot chart -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stephla01/shooting/2013/ )

But he certainly has the ball handling to get his shot off. And he's a good finisher. I expect him to thrive as the offensive focus of the second unit.

PaulGeorge
02-08-2013, 03:03 AM
There are 96 minutes available at the wing positions. With a 3 man rotation, that is 32 min per game for each guy. Unless both Danny and Paul start playing huge minutes, there will be minutes for all of them.

I hope we can find time for OJ. He knocks down pretty much every open shot from beyond the arc. 12 of 22 in limited time so far. IMO he should pick up what scraps are left.

imbtyler
02-08-2013, 03:38 AM
Granger will start. No way around that.

How would he "derail the train" by coming back and starting? That's his spot.

DC was starting before he got injured, and was replaced by George Hill. That was supposed to be HIS spot. Where's DC again? Who did we sign for nearly-obscene amounts of money this past offseason?

Sometimes, you never know what the FO is brainstorming.

cgg
02-08-2013, 04:19 AM
Well, he is scoring 8.3 PPG in 7.1 FGA (48.1 FG%, 55.1 TS%) this season.

So, since he will get more FGA due to being the second unit's offensive focus I expect his scoring to increase. I certainly believe that Lance can score.

The one thing that's troubling me in that case is that the majority of Lance's baskets so far have been assisted. 65% of his baskets were assisted, to be precise. In 3 pointers this mark increases to 90%. (here's the shot chart -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stephla01/shooting/2013/ )

But he certainly has the ball handling to get his shot off. And he's a good finisher. I expect him to thrive as the offensive focus of the second unit.

Danny will hit 40% of his threes if he is 90% assisted.

Mourning
02-08-2013, 06:24 AM
Some people are threatened by the Lance and Paul George success

And then some people are just full of **** to be quite frank...


some still believe that Danny is better than Paul George when in reality Danny in his best years was not even as good as PG.

Paul is definitely better then Danny. Danny is definitely better then Lance at this point though. And to me that is what it boils down and like Kstat mentioned I expect Paul's minutes to go down during the second half of the season, because he's really logging a LOT of minutes now and I wouldn't want him pretty much gassed when the playoffs come around the block.

It's also not about 5 bench players replacing 5 starters at the sametime (exception: Vogel during last years playoffs, which I expect we won't be seeing this year). No, the units get mixed, so both Lance, Paul and Danny will play with the bench guys.

Personally I expect Danny to start pretty soon and get limited minutes, which will be build up steadily if all goes well. Finishing games, that could be an entirely different matter and depends even more on how exactly Danny comes back. I wouldn't be surprised or opposed at all to see Lance finish games initially and him finishing games later on, depending on who our opponents are.

I do hope West keeps his touches and I also hope Hibbert will get a little more space to operate in which might be just what the docter ordered for him. It's a "waite and see"-situation for me at this point.

yoadknux
02-08-2013, 06:30 AM
I think it makes some sense to have the rotation built in a way that the starting 5 is Hill/George/Granger/West/Hibbert and let Granger spend time as the starting 3 and the backup 4. We could small-ball really effectively

Some people are threatened by the Lance and Paul George success, some still believe that Danny is better than Paul George when in reality Danny in his best years was not even as good as PG.
Paul George is NOT better than what Danny was when he peaked

cgg
02-08-2013, 06:44 AM
While I think the best lineup will be with Danny starting, I think as long as Danny or PG is on the court at all times, and Danny only plays with Lance or PG on the court, then it won't matter all that much.

Anthem
02-08-2013, 08:36 AM
The one thing that's troubling me in that case is that the majority of Lance's baskets so far have been assisted. 65% of his baskets were assisted, to be precise. In 3 pointers this mark increases to 90%. (here's the shot chart -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stephla01/shooting/2013/ )
To me, that's a sign that he's playing within the offense, and only scoring when he's given the ball with a specific expectation to score.

I wonder how many of his remaining buckets come in transition.

Nuntius
02-08-2013, 09:14 AM
To me, that's a sign that he's playing within the offense, and only scoring when he's given the ball with a specific expectation to score.

Agreed. And that's great. Lance has been really good for the team so far :)



I wonder how many of his remaining buckets come in transition.

Well, 47 of his 83 lay ups are assisted. That leaves 46 lay ups to be addressed. I clearly remember at least 5 lay ups coming off of great dribble drives. I'm sure that I'm forgetting some of them so let's say that 10-15 of his lay ups came off of dribble drives. That would leave 31 - 36 lay ups unaddressed. It's quite possible that at least 30 of his lay ups came in transition.

The interesting part is the shots from 10 ft to the 3 pt line. He has made 21 shots from that area (granted 21-71 is not exactly great) and only 9 of those are assisted. So, he has shown some ability to take people off the dribble for a mid range J with his crossover even if he's not shooting that pullup for a great percentage.

Rogco
02-08-2013, 09:46 AM
In my ideal little world in my head, Granger starts by coming off the bench. It works so well, that he continues in this role, with his minutes increasing to between 26-32 minute per game. He becomes a scoring threat and a real pain in the *** for opposing teams to match up with, and creates a new flexibility with the line-up. As he get's his fitness back he frequently closes out games. In my mind it's a Manu Ginobli scenario.

BillS
02-08-2013, 10:00 AM
...except lance isn't a scorer.

This really shows how the perceptions of Lance have changed. Initially he was considered someone who could play a very flashy "me" game in order to put the ball in the basket, but couldn't do much of anything else.

This more than anything is the improvement in him I see, and it has come to the point where Lance is seen as something OTHER than a scorer.

Johanvil
02-08-2013, 10:12 AM
While I think the best lineup will be with Danny starting, I think as long as Danny or PG is on the court at all times, and Danny only plays with Lance or PG on the court, then it won't matter all that much.

Boom! That would be the ideal scenario for me and really believe it will work that way. I think both sides are right here and key is how to find the right formula. The above one is a good way to start.

I, too am, fearful that without Lance the ball flow (and don't tell me that whenever we had it, Lance didn't play a major role with it) will possibly suffer. I can see the other argument though that the offense will get better and defense won't suffer at all.

Oh well, remains to be seen and hope Frank will be eager to change something if he sees something doesn't work (with Danny's return). Don't want us to say after the season "What if Frank had tried this or that....".

Since86
02-08-2013, 10:20 AM
DC was starting before he got injured, and was replaced by George Hill. That was supposed to be HIS spot. Where's DC again? Who did we sign for nearly-obscene amounts of money this past offseason?


I would think Hill actually being better than DC is the reason. Lance isn't better than Danny.

vnzla81
02-08-2013, 10:20 AM
And then some people are just full of **** to be quite frank...

You have been added to my ignore list congratulations.

Steagles
02-08-2013, 10:37 AM
OJ can be the new JJ Redick given an opportunity. I think if any time - any time at all - is left, OJ should get it. OJ will be a star one day. If its garbage minutes, screw it, go small. I don't care. Just get that man minutes.

Anthem
02-08-2013, 11:30 AM
You have been added to my ignore list congratulations.
Well, he's in good company.

Johanvil
02-08-2013, 11:37 AM
Well, he's in good company.

I wonder if he'll ever be able to keep on living after that tbh.

Naptown_Seth
02-08-2013, 12:05 PM
Lance goes to bench which gives you a great 2nd team creator. Rotations up till now have extended Paul, West and/or Hill deep into the bench time so it's not like Lance being moved to the bench would mean he's not working with a starter or two. Often after the shuffling begins you do have Lance on the court with a mix of starters and bench.

Typically you get a nice attack with West/Lance PnR, so you could pull West "early" for Tyler/Ian, Lance comes in a little after that maybe for Hill or Danny so you have a mix with lots of options, and then as the wings are leaving for Sam and maybe DJ a bit, you have West return to make sure Lance continues to have a starter to work with.


Lately we've had almost no main PT runs of all-bench, and if you count Lance as non-bench even when Danny returns as a starter then you'll NEVER have a point where at least 1 or 2 of those 6 aren't on the court. The team is going to run 8 deep with tiny bits of time for DJ or OJ, and I assume OJ will take minutes away from DJ.

To me Lance has to be the bench PG/creator. He can defend the PG as well as DJ does (ie, at all) and can be the guy to get the ball up and to initiate plays. If he can feed the post, Paul or Danny can. And Lance runs the best high PnR on the team.


Danny disrupting things is just nuts. It's such a great addition and it's not like this same group didn't play together last year. The only difference now is that Paul and Lance are better than they were. Oh no.

Nuntius
02-08-2013, 12:06 PM
Well, he's in good company.

Let's all be friends there ;)

Naptown_Seth
02-08-2013, 12:11 PM
BTW, if you go with Lance and OJ as the guards for awhile, I'd like to see OJ guard the PG and Lance take the SG. Seems natural. To me OJ has been hurt by guys with size more than anything.


We might not be able to keep these 6 together long term, but we are about to have 3-4 months of them going into the playoffs and we need to appreciate the unique moment in Pacers history.

Trader Joe
02-08-2013, 12:14 PM
I've never seen so much consternation over adding a career 18ppg, 6rpg, 1spg, 1bpg player to a roster at the trade deadline. If his name was Boris Yeltsin instead of Danny Granger no one would be worrying about it. If I told you we could go out and sign a 6'9" small forward with those career averages who can play the 3 or the 4, shoots well from deep and doesn't need the ball constantly in his hands on offense to be effective wouldn't you all be jumping at it? So many of you beg for the Pacers to add pieces at the trade deadline each year and now we are adding a huge piece to a roster that is already 31-19 and we're not giving up anything for it and half of you are freaking out over it.

There are probably 29 other teams that wish they were going to have this "problem" at the trade deadline/all star break.

imawhat
02-08-2013, 12:16 PM
BTW, if you go with Lance and OJ as the guards for awhile, I'd like to see OJ guard the PG and Lance take the SG. Seems natural. To me OJ has been hurt by guys with size more than anything.


We might not be able to keep these 6 together long term, but we are about to have 3-4 months of them going into the playoffs and we need to appreciate the unique moment in Pacers history.

Agreed. That's the suggestion I've been making. Unless we trade for a good backup PG soon, we need to have DJ out more than it hurts us to use Lance as PG (on offense, but OJ looks pretty good as PG defender).

Trader Joe
02-08-2013, 12:25 PM
When the Pistons added Rasheed Wallace for very little present day assets at the time(yes the pick became Josh Smith), they didn't sit around saying how is he going to fit? They made it work. If we can't make this work, that is on the Pacers and in particular Vogel, not the players or Danny. (Unless of course Danny isn't healthy, but I guess we will just have to see on that.)

Hicks
02-08-2013, 12:39 PM
I've never seen so much consternation over adding a career 18ppg, 6rpg, 1spg, 1bpg player to a roster at the trade deadline. If his name was Boris Yeltsin instead of Danny Granger no one would be worrying about it. If I told you we could go out and sign a 6'9" small forward with those career averages who can play the 3 or the 4, shoots well from deep and doesn't need the ball constantly in his hands on offense to be effective wouldn't you all be jumping at it? So many of you beg for the Pacers to add pieces at the trade deadline each year and now we are adding a huge piece to a roster that is already 31-19 and we're not giving up anything for it and half of you are freaking out over it.

There are probably 29 other teams that wish they were going to have this "problem" at the trade deadline/all star break.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/31313692.jpg

Trader Joe
02-08-2013, 12:43 PM
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/31313692.jpg

Seriously, oh no how well we ever work this guy who checks off a lot of our deficiencies into the lineup who also happens to be the longest tenured player on the roster and was drafted by the friggin' franchise, he's been working out with our 22 year old all star since before the kid was even drafted, clearly they hate each other. This is a logistical catastrophe!

Hicks
02-08-2013, 12:48 PM
'Okay, after that I think I'm going to give 700 points to Ryan, 500 points to Wayne, 800 points to Colin, and, eh, let's say 375 for Trader Joe. Okay, next, we're going to need a topic from the audience.'

Trader Joe
02-08-2013, 12:53 PM
'Okay, after that I think I'm going to give 700 points to Ryan, 500 points to Wayne, 800 points to Colin, and, eh, let's say 375 for Trader Joe. Okay, next, we're going to need a topic from the audience.'

Can we play the game where everyone is a different person at a party and one guy has to guess who is who? I call dibs on Wayne Newton.

McKeyFan
02-08-2013, 03:41 PM
My comment on Nov. 21st.


It's a question of who finishes, really. If we face Miami again in the playoffs, we can't afford to sit Lance at the end, or we will have the same non-existent offense as last year. Who sits if Lance plays?

Ace E.Anderson
02-08-2013, 04:03 PM
My comment on Nov. 21st.

Our offense this year is worse than our offense last year.

However I believe the evolution of PG as a scorer, plus a healthy D.West, It'd be smart to have a very good 3pt shooter in Danny Granger out on the floor to keep things spread. Obviously Lance's creativity would be great to have on the floor, but he has a tendency to get too excited and do dumb things as much as he has a tendency to make something happen. The playoffs are all about execution, and it'd be a smarter move to have the veteran, and more consistent shooting/scoring presence in Danny out on the floor.

However, if Roy is not being effective offensively/defensively, then I'm not opposed to going small with Danny at the 4 and West at the 5. We're one of a few teams in the league that can match up with both big and smaller lineups.

Banta
02-08-2013, 06:07 PM
I am pretty sure that I have never started a 10 page thread on PD before. Dang! :)

PacersRule
02-08-2013, 07:51 PM
My comment on Nov. 21st.

I don't think I'm as high on Lance as some of you guys. Lance has improved soooooooo much this year and I'm extremely excited for him and as a fan. However, I don't think Lance has the scoring ability to lead a group of bench players. If I remember correct, Vogel tried that a few times this year, and it didn't go very well. Lance has to improve the consistency of his midrange jump shot to become more effective. Also, sometimes Lance is really good at creating for others, when that "others" are West, PG, or Hill. But when you put him with Mahimi, DJ, or OJ, I don't think it's going to work as well as expected. I think I would like to see Lance and Granger play some two man game, kind of like what Hill does with West.

As to the question "If we face Miami again in the playoffs, we can't afford to sit Lance at the end, or we will have the same non-existent offense as last year. Who sits if Lance plays?" Why would you think we can't afford to sit Lance at the end (curious)? What if he makes some bonehead plays like he does in games once in a while? I think you go with matchups and see who's hot that game. However, assuming Granger comes back like his old self I would be more comfortable with Granger out there. We will not have the same "non-existent offense" as last year. We've got Paul George. Granger helps spread the floor so defenders won't dare to double, so that's a plus.

McKeyFan
02-08-2013, 09:16 PM
Our offense this year is worse than our offense last year.


Maybe by some stat somewhere, but not by my eye test.

Then let's try it this way: our offense against Miami this year is a lot better than against Miami last year. (Do you guys not remember how we could hardly even make an entry pass into the post? That problem continues with Lance out of the game.)

Ace E.Anderson
02-08-2013, 10:09 PM
Maybe by some stat somewhere, but not by my eye test.

Then let's try it this way: our offense against Miami this year is a lot better than against Miami last year. (Do you guys not remember how we could hardly even make an entry pass into the post? That problem continues with Lance out of the game.)

You're taking the fact that Paul is twice the offensive player he was last year, and the fact that David West is 100%. Last year Shane Battier was giving him problems defensively. Also George has adjusted to playing the PG role full time.

Those facts plus a healthy Danny is much better than those facts plus Lance which has equated to the worst scoring offense for much of the season--an important stat no matter what an eye test says.

McKeyFan
02-09-2013, 09:40 AM
You're taking the fact that Paul is twice the offensive player he was last year, and the fact that David West is 100%. Last year Shane Battier was giving him problems defensively. Also George has adjusted to playing the PG role full time.

Those facts plus a healthy Danny is much better than those facts plus Lance which has equated to the worst scoring offense for much of the season--an important stat no matter what an eye test says.
I wouldn't say your opinion (or the stat) isn't important. I just don't think it is definitive. I respect your insights (and the others who have made the same point about this year's versus last year's offense).

Yes, PG is trending and DWest is healthier. All your points about why the offense is better this year (or is it worse? I forget ;) ) are worth considering. Let's also consider the fact that Lance gets DWest and PG the ball just where they want it and he shares the ball more than Granger, who fg% isn't all that great.

I've asked this question in a couple of threads and maybe someone can finally answer it. How are we measuring last year's offense being better? Total points? FG%? Is fg% being factored in? Is pace of the game and number of possessions being factored in? I mean, while yes, we are 29th or whatever in total points, we are winning lots and lots of games.

Not being difficult. Asking honest questions and would love to hear some fair minded analysis that considers all factors in this assessment that last year's offense was better.

mattie
02-09-2013, 09:48 AM
I wouldn't say your opinion (or the stat) isn't important. I just don't think it is definitive. I respect your insights (and the others who have made the same point about this year's versus last year's offense).

Yes, PG is trending and DWest is healthier. All your points about why the offense is better this year (or is it worse? I forget ;) ) are worth considering. Let's also consider the fact that Lance gets DWest and PG the ball just where they want it and he shares the ball more than Granger, who fg% isn't all that great.

I've asked this question in a couple of threads and maybe someone can finally answer it. How are we measuring last year's offense being better? Total points? FG%? Is fg% being factored in? Is pace of the game and number of possessions being factored in? I mean, while yes, we are 29th or whatever in total points, we are winning lots and lots of games.

Not being difficult. Asking honest questions and would love to hear some fair minded analysis that considers all factors in this assessment that last year's offense was better.

Points per Possession. That's how we're measuring it.

Last year's offense was better. Period.

McKeyFan
02-09-2013, 10:05 AM
Points per Possession. That's how we're measuring it.

Last year's offense was better. Period.
Then I'm assuming the other team's points per possession is much lower this year in order for us to be winning.

So . . . could one argue that if this year's starting five didn't exert so much energy on defense, they would have an equivalent or better PPP this year than last year?

yoadknux
02-09-2013, 10:08 AM
I think the Lance vs Danny debate has many different aspects...

- I think we all agree Danny's the much much better overall player. He's a better rebounder, scorer, shooter, and teams actually gameplan on stopping him.
- There's one thing Lance does better than Danny - Moving and handling the ball, something that has been long an issue for us... West is blossoming this year because he's getting the ball exactly where and when he should be getting it, and this has a lot to do with Lance.
- Lance is a better fit next to Hill as he can run the offense - Hill is a combo guard who's pretty much more of a scorer and less of a "sets guys up". It doesn't look like we're going to move Hill for a real point guard any time soon as well
- Another thing Lance does is... allow P.George play SF, and because of that he's guarded by other small forwards who aren't quite quick enough to defend him.

So overall the choice here is lesser talent with better fit or better talent with lesser fit. In my mind, the most logical move is really to turn Hill and Lance into a playmaking point guard, maybe someone like Conley, but that doesn't seem likely.

I think it's also important to compare the lineups:
Hill/George/Granger/West/Hibbert will give very good spacing on offense and a defense that relies on size, toughness, and will rebound the ball well. However I think this lineup will be (just like last year) slow and predictable.
Hill/Lance/George/West/Hibbert has better ball movement and is quicker.

So the choice here is basically Spacing vs Ball Movement.

In my opinion, rotation should be something like this:
Hill (32) / D.J (16)
George (15) / Lance (28) / OJ (5)
Granger (26) / George (22)
West (28) / Tyler (15) / Granger (5)
Hibbert (28) / Ian (15) / West (5)

BlueNGold
02-09-2013, 10:18 AM
Go out to basketball reference and it's obvious we were rated higher offensively last year. That is because we had Collison and Granger last year...whose absence (especially DC's) is now helping us defensively. Then you have Hibbert who is killing our offense this year. So, certainly, we were better offensively last year notwithstanding Paul's explosion. We are probably a better team though because the defense is literally the best in the entire NBA. I would argue that it's because we have Lance and Hill rather than Danny and DC playing big minutes...along with DWest being a bit healthier....and Paul improving a bit.

Cousy47
02-09-2013, 10:21 AM
I never said there is not 2 sides to every agruement, I'm just not listening to yours. IMHO, if Danny is healthy, we are a better team regardless how Frank uses him. If he's not healthy, who plays where and when is a mote point.

Since86
02-09-2013, 02:00 PM
Last night was the perfect example of why Danny starts when he gets back. Too long of periods where the offense was pretty bad. Lance is good at what he does, but it's rather limited in amount of time it's being done. Most of the time, he's pretty much non-existent. He'll knock down a shot from the corner off a pass or he'll make a back cut, nut they're but unique to Lance.

When he starts doing his thing, you let him go and ride it until it stops for whatever reason. I don't think bringing him off the bench changes any of that. It might result in 5-8 less minutes per night, but that's 5-8 less minutes of him standing in the corner, not 5-8 mins less of him being aggressive.

Scoring by committee works, if you've got a big enough, reliable enough committee. Right now, the Pacers struggle a little bit with that.

I'm just not sure why you'd want to limit Danny's role, to keep Lance's role where it is, when Lance's roll for the majority of the time is rather dull. He's only averaging 8pts.

I've liked Lance since the beginning, and I feel as confident in him as I ever have, but Danny's better.

The Pacers only have 4 players (counting Roy's 9.9) averaging double digits. Which wouldn't be as bad if the rest was filled with 8-9pts from mutliple guys. But the next one is Lance at 8.3pts and then it goes to Green at 6.9pts.

Danny has proven he can coexist with a scoring SG, when he played with Dunleavy. Mike wasn't shy about getting his shots up. PG is better, but him and Mike even play a similar style offensively.


If Lance's scoring was offset with 6-7 assist per night, then sure. Don't get me wrong, I think he 3 he does get is positive signs, but I don't think it's special enough to make up for the lack of scoring. Danny averages 2per game for his career.

The Pacers just really need help scoring, more than anything else, so I say maximize that player who gives you that the best.

mattie
02-09-2013, 05:02 PM
Go out to basketball reference and it's obvious we were rated higher offensively last year. That is because we had Collison and Granger last year...whose absence (especially DC's) is now helping us defensively. Then you have Hibbert who is killing our offense this year. So, certainly, we were better offensively last year notwithstanding Paul's explosion. We are probably a better team though because the defense is literally the best in the entire NBA. I would argue that it's because we have Lance and Hill rather than Danny and DC playing big minutes...along with DWest being a bit healthier....and Paul improving a bit.

Except the defense was better last year too. The defense and offense was better with Hill last season compared to this season... (try again)

mattie
02-09-2013, 05:04 PM
Then I'm assuming the other team's points per possession is much lower this year in order for us to be winning.

So . . . could one argue that if this year's starting five didn't exert so much energy on defense, they would have an equivalent or better PPP this year than last year?

No. Last years five man unit was better defensively and offensively compared to the starting five this year.

OlBlu
02-09-2013, 05:56 PM
No. Last years five man unit was better defensively and offensively compared to the starting five this year.

No, last years group may have been better offensively (mostly because Hibbert is not as good there this year). This years team is way better defensively and they may be the best defensive team in the NBA........ Granger could not defend your grandmother....:cool: ...

OlBlu
02-09-2013, 05:58 PM
Except the defense was better last year too. The defense and offense was better with Hill last season compared to this season... (try again)

You need to watch some footage of last years team and this years team. This team, right now, without Granger is better than last years team.....:cool: ... Just ask Lebron James.....