The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Really long ESPN Article on Danny

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Really long ESPN Article on Danny

    I haven't had time to read this because I'm swamped at work today, but I didn't see it posted so here it is

    Chris Broussard

    What's The Difference Between Danny Granger and Kobe Bryant?

    Their stats suggest not much. Then again, some will tell you stats lie. Particularly when your team isn't all that.

    He was an unsung rookie with a rehabbing knee. The last thing Danny Granger needed was to be called out by one of the league's baddest men. But sure enough, there was Ron Artest, challenging his Pacers teammate to man up.

    To get a feel for how harrowing this is, you need to understand one-on-one Artest-style. It's part basketball, part football, with a bit of wrestling tossed in. He slaps at the ball with a ferocity that bruises wrists and forearms and throws shoulders like boxer's jabs, repeatedly bouncing them off your chin. All of it is a test of will, of course, to see if he can trust you once the real games begin.

    In the summer of 2005, Artest tested Granger, again and again. But he didn't render a verdict until weeks later. Following an early-season game, Danny Granger Sr. approached his son's infamous teammate. Artest made polite conversation then began to walk off. Suddenly, he stopped and headed back. "Mr. Granger," he said, staring into the father's eyes, "in two years your son is going to be a star."

    Artest was a couple of years premature in his prediction, but he wasn't wrong. Today, Granger is a rising star, a 25-year-old All-Star averaging 25 ppg. In the words of teammate Jeff Foster, it's "an astounding rise" for a player who was offered one D1 scholarship (from Bradley; he later transferred to New Mexico) and was passed over 16 times on draft night in favor of such current benchwarmers as Ike Diogu, Antoine Wright and Joey Graham. Yet even now not everyone is sold on Danny Granger. Indy's sub-.500 season has talking heads from Jeff Van Gundy to local legend Reggie Miller arguing that the 6'8", 228-pound forward should have watched the All-Stars, not played among them.

    And he is hardly the only player who faces this particular skepticism. The Clippers' Zach Randolph and Wolves' Al Jefferson are 20-point, 10-rebound machines, but neither has come close to being an All-Star. The Kings' Kevin Martin was seventh in the NBA in scoring last season, but few, if any, consider him big-time. Look, everyone knows that who is or isn't an All-Star in any given year can be as much a question of depth as the final word on a player's skill set. And this season, the Raptors' Chris Bosh and Nets' Devin Harris were teammates of Granger's on the East despite also playing for less-than-mediocre clubs. Bosh, in fact, is an Olympian. But still, it is individual leaders like them who cause the same question to be asked each year: Is a guy who puts up huge stats for a bad team as good as his numbers?

    Being able to reconcile the space between a player's stats and his team's record is a big part of what separates championship-level talent evaluators from the recycled masses. All sorts of x factors come into play: Who is the guy scoring against? How does he get his points? Is he effective in crunch time? And the consensus on Granger, not just in front offices, but on sidelines and in locker rooms as well, is that he's legit.
    And that's because…

    Danny Granger is efficient. Even as Granger acknowledges the lone-wolf theory—that on a poor team someone is bound to post impressive stats—he is quick to add a corollary: "Some say it's harder to score on a bad team because everybody's loading up on you."

    Don't let the Pacers' 6—5 record when Granger sat with a partially torn tendon in his foot fool you. It's not like there are many other guys on Indy who can do damage. Granger has been double-teamed, denied the ball and keyed on in ways that other prominent wings, like Paul Pierce, Joe Johnson and Carmelo Anthony, never are. "He's scoring volumes of points with the best defenses in the league focused on him,'' coach Jim O'Brien says.

    Granger's shooting percentage of 43.2 isn't blistering, but it's within percentage points of Johnson's as well as Kobe's in both his last season with and first season without Shaq. With a quick release and deft touch from behind the arc, a snappy first step that gets him to the rim (and the line: 6.8 FTA per game) and a solid midrange game, Granger gets his points in the flow of a democratic offense, not by going rogue like many top dogs on sorry teams. "He gets his points quietly," says Rockets stopper Shane Battier. "When they beat us in Indiana, I guarded him, and I thought I'd done a pretty good job. Then I looked at the stat sheet and saw he had 25."

    Danny Granger has a winning work ethic. There's 0.9 seconds left, game tied, and four Pacers are lined up at the foul line. Granger pops out beyond the three-point line, catches Mike Dunleavy's inbound feed and hurls the ball toward the rim in one motion as Steve Nash flies toward him. All net. The Pacers mob Granger as the home-team Suns walk off the court in disbelief.

    It isn't luck that has Granger draining shots like that. He practices those heaves almost daily. The guy who scored an impressive 30 on his ACT and was accepted to Yale works on stuff some players don't even think about. In addition to catch-and-release J's, he practices shots off bad passes, from deep beyond the arc and from the apex of his highest jumps. "I'm telling you," he says, "I get at least one unorthodox shot every game."

    There are six cities in which NBA players gather for hard runs in the off-season: Houston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Las Vegas. If a player is serious about getting better, he'll spend significant time in one of them. Granger always heads for LA as soon as the season ends, but last year he hit Vegas as well. He returned to Indy with a nice payoff: an improved midrange shot and more basket-attacking skills. Armed with those new weapons, he is on pace to be the first player in NBA history to raise his scoring average at least five points in three straight seasons. His determination also manifests in on-court toughness. In November, Granger lost two front teeth in a loose-ball scrum against Boston. Within moments, as blood dripped from both sides of his mouth, he was begging to return. That fearlessness is the product of his upbringing in a violent, drug-infested neighborhood in Metairie, La.; several of Granger's childhood friends wound up in prison. "Danny's not backing down from anything or anybody," says Pacers president Larry Bird.

    Danny Granger doesn't pad his stats—Not against bad teams, not during blowouts. Through mid-March Indy's record (28—40) is lame, but more than a few league-watchers concede the Pacers aren't exactly bottom-feeders; they do stay close most nights. A league-high 18 of their games have been decided by three points or less (they're 7—11 in those contests), and they've beaten the Celtics, Lakers, Cavaliers, Magic and Pistons, and the Rockets twice. Granger put 42 on the Pistons, 36 on the Nuggets, 33 on the Cavaliers and the Magic and 32 on the Lakers. He's tied with Dwyane Wade in average fourth-quarter scoring (at 6.9) and has a game-winning tip against Houston to go with that buzzer-beater in Phoenix. "If he was scoring and we were losing by 20, maybe the numbers would be a little false," O'Brien says. "That isn't the case."
    Getty Images
    Granger takes it to the rack against Portland.

    As go-to as Granger has become, though, he is a long way from crashing the league's elite wing triumvirate of Kobe, LeBron and Wade. In fact, if those guys are the first tier of swingmen, most scouts put Granger in the third, behind a group that includes Pierce, Anthony, Johnson, a motivated Vince Carter and a healthy Tracy McGrady. Granger heads a bunch that includes Rashard Lewis, Caron Butler, Andre Iguodala and Josh Howard. League wisdom holds that in a more conventional system than O'Brien's quick-draw, every-look-is-a-good-one scheme, Granger would be good for 17 to 20 points a night.

    In the end, it's not even about the numbers. "It's not an indictment of him that the Pacers aren't winning," says an Eastern Conference scout. "But if he's your best player—which he is in Indiana—you're in trouble. You're not going to win at a high level." One West exec, referencing the NBA's most heavenly duo, puts it more poetically but just as bluntly: "Granger can be a Scottie to somebody's Mike. He just can't be Mike."

    But he can continue to get better. Unlike several players of his caliber, Granger may be far from tapped out. "I'm about 70% of the player I can be," he says. O'Brien sees him becoming a lockdown defender, rather than just a wicked weakside shotblocker (1.5 bpg). Bird sees seven or eight boards a night, rather than the five he corrals now. And Granger says he's determined to hone his post-up skills and develop a point forward's mentality and handle. Now he works solely from the wing, but someday he wants to be the guy grabbing a defensive board, pushing it upcourt and running a high pick-and-roll from the top of the key. He wants to be the type of player who can create for himself and his teammates from any spot on the floor. You know, like LeBron or Kobe.

    Maybe it's optimistic to think Granger will morph into a beast in every aspect of the game. Can hard work alone really take someone so far? The best of the best all bust their tails. They also were born with qualities that put them far beyond excellence. For LeBron, it's vision and physique. Kobe has grace, Wade burst. "It's no insult to say Danny can't be as good as those guys," O'Brien says with a laugh. "Some guys are just the greatest of their generation." Granger gets that. In early February, moments after being congratulated on his All-Star invite by patrons at Sullivan's Steakhouse on the outskirts of Indianapolis, he addressed the aforementioned "third-tier" assessment. "I think it's accurate," he said. "Right now, other guys are a little better than me in some areas."
    Danny Sr. fidgeted in a white sweat suit beside his son. He clearly thought Danny Jr. was shortchanging himself. After all, he saw his son grow from a high school power forward who didn't make all-state into an NBA All-Star swingman. He heard the coaches at LSU tell Danny he wasn't good enough to play for the Tigers. To Danny Sr., who raised his three children alone after his wife deserted the family when Junior was 12, nothing is impossible, on the court or off.

    "He's a father," the younger Granger said with a smirk, as he shot a look toward his dad. "Parents always think their kids are the best. One time, I had 35 points and 15 rebounds in high school, and on the way home he told me he thought I was ready to go straight to the NBA. I said, 'Let's get a scholarship first.'"

    Father and son cracked up at the memory. But Granger's humor and modesty cloak something more cold. You can hear it in the preface to his steakhouse self-eval: Right now. Junior is as confident in his skills as Senior is. He believes he can attain not only the second tier of stardom but also the rare air of Kobe & Co. "I can definitely be the No. 1 guy on a really good team," he says without a hint of doubt. "People can say I'm not good enough, and I'll just keep proving them wrong—and smiling inside."
    Granger actually prefers to have naysayers. At this point, he says, love from all corners would just feel weird. He relishes the challenge.
    Just ask Ron Artest.
    Last edited by idioteque; 03-27-2009, 11:44 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

    Damn you beat me. I thought it was a good read. I think its pretty fair too. Why can't Danny get to that 1st tier? I personally think hes already in that second tier.


    • #3
      Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

      Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
      Damn you beat me. I thought it was a good read. I think its pretty fair too. Why can't Danny get to that 1st tier? I personally think hes already in that second tier.
      Well, seeing that I forgot to paste in the title (I will make the edit) I won't hold it against you.

      As for the article itself, it is a good and read I think parts of it underestimate Danny horribly, while parts of it were okay. What really stuck out for me was the fact that the consensus has just now emerged that Danny is "legitimate." By legitimate they almost meant in the way Primoz Brezec was not legitimate when he averaged 12 or whatever ppg during the Bobcats' inagural season, he is obviously not a 12 ppg scorer, that team just had very little talent. Or how Ron Mercer was illegitmate when he averaged 16 ppg for the pathetic Bulls, and then came over to Indiana and didn't average even close to that number. I thought that had been pretty well established that Danny is a legitimate 20+ ppg scorer.

      Funny how they're calling him a Pippen to a Jordan, I think, with the right talent around him, Danny can play a Reggie-caliber role for the Pacers. Give him a McKey, give him a Smits, give him a Mark Jackson, and the Pacers would be very, very, good. Maybe good enough to win the East, hell maybe good enough to win the whole damn thing. I assume that the chances of the Pacers ever acquiring a Kobe or LeBron level player are not good at all, and that we'll have to perservere through building a really good TEAM with a lot of very solid players.
      Last edited by idioteque; 03-27-2009, 11:49 AM.


      • #4
        Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny



        • #5
          Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

          Good article dc. I understand that some believe Danny shouldn't have been an All-Star but he deserved it. The All-Star game is about individual players and their season; the Playoffs are about successful teams and their season. The real question is...When does his game start to make those around him better and we start celebrating the team's success along with Danny's individual success?
          Vita sine honore vivere not est.


          • #6
            Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

            If Danny Granger is a Scottie Pippen, then holy crap we're set for a while.

            Who knows what Danny is, its pretty clear he is not a slouch. He's also clearly got the work ethic to make himself better. I can't wait to watch him next year especially if he is able to add point forward skills to his offensive game.


            • #7
              Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

              Im looking more forward to those post skills than anything else mentioned. I can see him in the triple threat just having defenders not knowing what the hell to do to stop him.


              • #8
                Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

                I like the Granger-Pippen comparison. I've been trying to figure out who his game most resembles for awhile now, without much luck, but it's not a stretch to compare him to Pippen. And that's not a bad thing at all --- Pippen was a top-50 all-time player according to some publications. Their games are fairly similar, their stats are similar at this point in their careers, I could see Granger getting to Pippen's production in a few years. Pippen was a terrific assist and rebounder at his position, as well as a 20-point scorer. Granger has the scoring down, and like he acknowledges, needs to improve his rebounding and passing. But I think he can do it.

                About the first-tier thing... I'm not going to put anything past him at this point. I honestly didn't think he'd ever even be a 3rd or 2nd-tier guy, and he's proved me wrong. I under-estimated his desire to improve. I don't think he's necessarily a tier-1 guy, but then again, I've been wrong so far on the other tiers, so what do I know?
                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.


                • #9
                  Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

                  Post up would be great, but I want to see him master his ball-handling first. He's already gotten a lot better, but he's not a master yet.


                  • #10
                    Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    Post up would be great, but I want to see him master his ball-handling first. He's already gotten a lot better, but he's not a master yet.
                    Originally posted by ESPN
                    And Granger says he's determined to hone his post-up skills and develop a point forward's mentality and handle.
                    looks like he's aiming for both.

                    posting up seems to be a natural fit for danny's skills. the "point forward" stuff looks further away. but then, danny's ball handling has already improved by an unbelievable amount. who knows how much more he can improve.


                    • #11
                      Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

                      I'm with the group that would rather see post skills. Sure, handling would be nice, but post skills would really make it nearly impossible to guard him. Get the post skills and then get the ball handling.


                      • #12
                        Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        I like the Granger-Pippen comparison. I've been trying to figure out who his game most resembles for awhile now, without much luck, but it's not a stretch to compare him to Pippen. And that's not a bad thing at all --- Pippen was a top-50 all-time player according to some publications. Their games are fairly similar, their stats are similar at this point in their careers, I could see Granger getting to Pippen's production in a few years. Pippen was a terrific assist and rebounder at his position, as well as a 20-point scorer. Granger has the scoring down, and like he acknowledges, needs to improve his rebounding and passing. But I think he can do it.
                        seth's been banging that drum for a while but mostly to compare the year by year improvement of pippen back then and granger now.


                        • #13
                          Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

                          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                          seth's been banging that drum for a while but mostly to compare the year by year improvement of pippen back then and granger now.
                          Yes, and judging by his dogged persistence, I'm pretty sure he's banging it against his head.


                          • #14
                            Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

                            If Danny wants the second tier, he has to decide to become a defender. Neither his effort nor his technique are up to snuff.

                            It's fixable. It usually happens because of a red *** coming on the scene. Larry Brown made Reggie much better. KG made Paul Pierce much better.

                            All that said, Danny's improvement has been great to watch.


                            • #15
                              Re: Really long ESPN Article on Danny

                              I really don't understand the Pippen comparison. Their games aren't that similar. I thought the article was merely stating Danny is a #2 guy and not going to be the best player on a championship level team. Part of me agrees with that. Unless we somehow build a team that fields 5 starters who play their roles brilliantly.

                              What Danny needs to maximize his talent is

                              1) A post player that commands double teams inside.
                              2) An elite PG that will draw attention and consistently get him open looks.
                              3) TIME
                              "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"