I love Danny, and the fact that he has been dealing with injuries once the team around him has finally become elite is incredibly difficult to stomach for fans who saw him give his best years to bad Pacers teams... However, as much as I hate saying it, he will be signing elsewhere as a FA unless some GM offers Larry some incredibly lopsided deal in our favor that allows us to keep cap flexibility.
My sincere hope is that Danny ends his Pacers career with a ring as a contributor.
We're still talking about this?
Does anybody know if Granger took part in any activity today?
[QUOTE=BillS;1735398]I think your reaching a bit there, I guess we have different definitions of what a black hole is. A player doesn't have to be selfish IMO to be a black hole. Danny's lack of skill in certain areas causes him to have tunnel vision on the court. I don't consider him selfish, he just doesn't the ability to make plays for his teammates. Rudy, on the other hand, does have the necessary skills to be more of a playmaker, but he still chooses not too. I do consider that selfish.Quote:
Well, yeah, for a team trying to share the ball calling a player a black hole is essentially saying he's not good enough to even play spot minutes. That's pretty harsh.
Not assisting and dribbling with his head down straight to the basket. There's really no comparison between the two when it comes to playmaking.Quote:
If all you mean is that he shoots more than he should, there are lots of ways to say it other than implying he's selfish and never gioes up the ball. Which leads to the question you were asked - if he shoots the same number of times as PG and turns it over the same number of times as PG, what is he doing the rest of the time that is different from what PG does such that he's a black hole?[/
obviously, this is years ago and one of Danny's best years. And best passing year. This guy's formula still said Danny was a black hole
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/57ghQpN8Ico?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
is more of a "black hole" than Granger. Right? Isn't it what it says? And how about Nic Batum being close as well? Could a player that is commented for his all-around game like Nic be a "black hole"? And how about Luol Deng that appears more interested in passing than shooting and yet it doesn't translate to assists?
We need to differentiate two things here. The first thing is willingness to pass. The second thing is ability to pass. There is a huge difference between those two. Kobe and Monta have great ability to pass the ball but they are not always willing to do it. Deng and Granger are willing to pass the ball but they lack the ability to do that as often as they would like.
Look, I have been following the Pacers since the start of the lockout season. I am well aware that you have bled for this team more than me. Almost everyone on here has been through the JOB era and that has left some scars on some of you. I have seen replays of some of those games and they were indeed awful basketball. But the Vogel era is different. I was lucky enough to start watching after the Vogel era had started. I was lucky enough to not bear those scars that the JOB era caused. I was lucky enough to not have my perception of our players distorted by JOB's coaching. I was lucky enough to witness this team solely under Vogel. And the one thing that became clear from the start was that everyone on this team was a willing passer.
The main problem was that I disliked the NBA. I am not a fan of superstars and I was raised with the belief that team work beats talent. I was terribly prejudiced against the NBA and thought that it was just a bunch of super-athletes playing Iso. But when the lockout happened I started monitoring closely and see if the season will begin or not. I admit that I didn't want the NBA season at that time. But then the lockout ended and out of curiosity I decided to watch the Pacers-Bulls pre-season game in December 26, 2011.
And that's when I understood that I was wrong about the NBA. Sure, the highlights focus on super-athletic plays and a lot of teams play a lot of Isos but there's more to it than that. I was extremely glad to see that the team that I liked as a kid had another huge Center in its ranks. I was glad to see that we were playing big. I was glad to see that we had post players. I was glad to see that our offense was predicated around teamwork and not around a superstar. In other words, I was glad to see that this team played the game the way I liked and consider right.
Perfect end to this season, IMO, is the Pacers win a Championship with Granger playing and maybe being the 2nd or 3rd best scorer on the team. Then Danny either retires or becomes an assistant Coach here. I just want to see Granger have his final game as a player in a Pacer uniform, just like Reggie.
Nuntius, Danny Granger didn't change his game much at all in Vogel's first full year. I have to disagree with you there. I didn't see much of the preseason so I can't personally verify Anthem's post that said Danny seemed more willing to give the ball up in preseason. If so, that's a great sign.
My links weren't really meant to prove Danny's a black hole, that's my opinion, I only put them there to show you that I'm not alone in thinking that. It's not some crazy idea. Certainly not crazy enough to deserve the **** I got in this thread for saying it.