Agree? Disagree? Check it out.
Agree? Disagree? Check it out.
call me a hater but as usual what is Iverson doing on that list?
Any attempt to rank players is subjective, or is it objective? Yeah I would put Danny in the top 25 players, but since I don't remember whether that is subjectively or objectively, I could be wrong. At any rate, he is our best player.
Subjective...meaning that it belongs to the mind of the subject (author), as opposed to object of fact.
Granger should atleast be top 15
Strongly disagree once you get past #3. Allen Iverson is not a top 20 player anymore, maybe not even a top 50. There are not 7 players better than Dwight Howard. Chauncey Billups has been great for Denver, but he's not the 7th best player in the NBA. Steve Nash is not better than Deron Williams. Amare and Shaq are both too high.
"A man with no belly has no appetite for life."
- Salman Rushdie
Granger isn't a top 20 player.
1. LeBron James
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Dwyane Wade
4. Chris Paul
5. Dwight Howard
6. Tim Duncan
7. Kevin Garnett
8. Brandon Roy
9. Kevin Durant
10. Dirk Nowitzki
11. Pau Gasol
12. Yao Ming
13. Deron Williams
14. Paul Pierce
15. Chris Bosh
16. Joe Johnson
17. Devin Harris
18. Tony Parker
19. Amare Stoudemire
20. Al Jefferson
21. Carmelo Anthony
22. Manu Ginobli
23. Ray Allen
24. David West
25. Steve Nash
Last edited by BRushWithDeath; 03-04-2009 at 12:39 PM.
"I had to take her down like Chris Brown."
Danny Granger is better than all of these players. Everyone overrates Manu, Ray at 5 years younger was better than DG but not now, David West is good but not that good, and Steve Nash is declining.
At this point in their careers, I would take Danny over MOST of the people on anyone's Top 20 list. Sure there are a few no brainers, but not a whole lot.
How is Shaq #10? Sure, he's still Shaq and if he asked me in person, he'd be #1, that's for sure. But, seriously, #10? Not anymore. I think Paul Pierce and Shaq should switch places on that list.
Can't really argue with Granger's spot, though I wouldn't argue if he were higher either.
Billups and Wade should switch spots. Garnett isn't that high anymore, though he belongs on the list.
BLUE COLLAR GOLD SWAGGER
I think Danny is better than Al Jefferson. On your list I do think that Pau and Yao are a little high. Pau is good now because he compliments the play of Bryant and vice-versa. If he were still with the Grizz, his value wouldn't be so high.
Don't worry, this is just my opinion, I am not trying to call you out.
If Roy and Durant are #8 and #9, than Granger is not far behind. I would argue Granger is better than Roy. Roy can't score or protect the rim like Danny. Durant and Granger are at the same level right now. Durant will be better next season.
Players below Danny on that list.
In my opinion, Granger is #14, Roy #15, Durant #13
Parker and Amare are far down on that list. Yao is right on at #12. Gasol is way overrated.
42% shooting, 29% on threes. Once upon a time, his 10+ free throws per game was the one thing haters ignored in his performance. But now he gets 6. Once upon a time, a pretty good defender when he was in the mood. Currently, he's average on a good day.
On performance, he's a 7 million dollar player at best. He might do a bit better because he can put butts in the seats. But in this economy, that's not a lock.
If he doesn't retire, his pride is going to take a hit on his next contract.
I, too, will go with the "subjective", as opposed to object of fact.
One question that arises in my mind: How does one explain the recent success of the Pacers without a "Top 20" player? Or, along the same lines, the success of the Pistons without the Answer?
One thing that comes to mind is the coaching and how both coaches adjust without their supposed "Top 20" players. It could be said that since OB has less options (sans Granger), guys who normally don't get the green light are experiencing a lot more freedom and, in turn, gaining confidence. Maybe the same could be said about Coach Curry?
Should be interesting to see the Pacers upon Danny's return and how the younger guys play.
Kobe should be first, then LeBron. But other than that, I agree with his position.
typically, when a top 10-15 player goes down to injury, the team he's on does not get better in their absence.
Does Durant play defense?
Is Durant a better player now?
Granger's leadership and toughness are off the charts and will be invaluable when the Ps get to the playoffs.
But he's never been a great shooter and had to be praised when his assists got into the 9 range. He always liked to play defense away from the ball, he was a homerun play defender. Loved jumping the passing lane or picking a pocket out top, also loved leaving his man to cross the court and try to backdoor steal the post feed.
The thing with all that is it's pretty individualistic and he never really was good at involving others. People said "look at his teammates" but frankly I saw Jordan make plenty of stiffs look pretty decent. AI didn't do that. Instead he just dominated the ball twice as hard.
I agree with a lot of this, Iverson was never my type of player. Fun to watch, but I'd have been annoyed if he was on my favorite team.
The year Jordan retired to play baseball, the Bulls won 55 games without him. I don't think Iverson has ever been on a team that would win 55 games without him being on the roster.
-- Steve --
I'll ignore the Iverson scenario, because I think he's a shell of his former self.
Teams in all sports lose stars to injuries all the time and keep rolling. The Celtics lost Garnett to the knee injury but have been fine. Is Tom Brady not a Top 20 player anymore since the Patriots finished with one of the AFC's better records?
I think a lot of it has to do with teams looking past them. "Oh, they don't have their star, we can rest on this one." It applies a lot more to basketball, especially at this point of the season, where some guys are running out of gas.
Also, there's the general sense the players have that they need to step up and fill the void. First it was Daniels, then Murphy, lately here it's been Jack. They know they have to play better to account for Granger being out, and combined with some teams' not taking them seriously as an opponent, it's no wonder they're able to win.
Plus, it forces the guys to run the offense without a security net, so you're going to see a better performance. Someone walking a tight rope might fall during a trial, but take away their net and I think the odds of messing up drop significantly. There's no more margin for error. There's no "feed Danny the rock," so the other teams can't just say "Make sure to cover Danny." Teams don't know who's going to step up, and it's making the Pacers more difficult to play.
Not to mention giving the younger guys some minutes, as you said.