Announcement

Collapse

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:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
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 NBA.com.

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

Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

    I am not worried a bit about Danny's lack of playing time. I think the experience alone will help him improve his game and take it to another level. I am even a bit glad he's not playing much at all because he won't come into camp physically drained from playing on the USA team.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      There's no interest in a post game because (A) they have no post players and (B) FIBA rules generally frown on post play.

      small-ball is generally how the international game is played. Most of the big men step outside the 3-point line. May as well skip the middle men and start four swingmen.

      Even when USA sent superstar centers to international tournaments, they never really dominated. You can pretty Much maul anybody in the low post.
      I have seen enough FIBA over the years. I know how it goes. I also know Coach K and his lack of developing post players as well as his disinterest in pounding the ball in the paint.

      Its amazing that good teams like Spain and Argentina manage to include guys who can post people up and score and yet you keep suggesting that such a style of play is irrelevant. And once again the reason why Team USA doesn't have any post players is because K and Jerry only invited one to the tryouts : Brook Lopez. I'm not including Kevin Love because he is too undersized and doesn't typically score with his back to the basket. Anyway I agree with you that Granger does not have a real role on this team and much of the blame for this must go to Granger himself. But at the same time I'm also arguing that K does not have a scheme for halfcourt offense. You have been looking at a lot of the games yourself and surely you must see by now that the international teams tend to have better halfcout schemes than Team USA.
      Last edited by KennerLeaguer; 09-11-2010, 12:27 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

        They have better halfcourt chemistry because they have played together a lot longer. You don't just throw 12 guys together and become the Utah Jazz in 2 months.

        Argentina has post players? Who, exactly? Luis Scola spends his time pick on the elbow doing pick and rolls and shooting 15-foot jumpers all game.

        Spain uses the Gasols well, but again they are a pick and roll team. There are very little low post plays, unless one of them manages to get position right under the basket.

        As for coach k not wanting a post up game, have you forgotten Elton Brand? That 1999 Duke team ran low post ISOs %90 of the time down the court and turned Brand into Shaq lite.

        Coach K's brilliance with team USA is his ability to maximize the effectiveness of 12 random players against teams that have been playing together for 5-10 years.
        Last edited by Kstat; 09-11-2010, 10:18 AM.

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          They have better halfcourt chemistry because they have played together a lot longer. You don't just throw 12 guys together and become the Utah Jazz in 2 months.
          You didn't seem to care about that when I was arguing for Coach Larry Brown and what he had to deal with in 2004. Now you want to trot that point out to make a defense of Coach K? That's a tad hypocritical. But that's an argument for another time. I do not think that K 's Duke teams have had a legit halfcourt offense in over a dozen years. His Team USA didn't have legit halfcourt offenses either from 2006 thru 2008. I supposes he coaches by leadership or inspiration because it surely isn't by his halfcourt strategy. He has the best players on his roster and they are use to playing one-on-one. So he just sits back and watches them do just that. Sometimes you can get away with it, sometimes you can't (as in 2006 and twice in 1990).

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

            [QUOTE=Jon Theodore;1059530]

            Granger wants to score, doesn't really care about rebounding or defense./QUOTE]


            I got to thinking about this last night. I know why I feel the reason is, and that reason is Jim O'Brien.

            I feel Granger has gotten lazy playing in Jimmy's helter skelter run n gun with little "D" type scheme the last 3 years. Personally, I feel with Murphy gone you will see Granger camped out behind the arc more this year shooting 3's. From 07-08 season to last season, Granger increased his 3 pt shot from 5 to 7 a game. There was a time last season he was shooting 9 per game at around 31%. I look for Granger to shoot around 9 3's per game this coming season.

            Granger hasn't played good defense since his 1st couple of years in the league. Why should he when "D" isn't something but an after thought with Jimmy. Granger isn't a great rebounder or big in asts either. In Jimmy's system, you just need to be a scorer which is exactly what Granger has become, so I'm not surprised at all that Granger isn't getting PT in the World games. My hope is this will open up Granger's eyes, and he decides to work on his overall game to improve his value as a player.

            I like Granger, but I'm not in love with him like so many others are. I'm not adverse to trading Granger who has become a 1 dimensional player for a player who has a more well rounded game. Sorry, but Granger isn't Batman, nor will he ever be. I don't ever feel he'll be an Allstar again either. Too many have just embellished Granger as a player b/c he plays for the Blue N Gold. He's a good player just not as good as many like to think he is.

            In Granger's defense, maybe the best thing for his improvement is getting away from Jimmy. I hate seeing Granger in a 4th year of Jimmy's type system. IMO, I feel it's detrimential to his overall growth as a player. JMOAA.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

              Originally posted by KennerLeaguer View Post
              You didn't seem to care about that when I was arguing for Coach Larry Brown and what he had to deal with in 2004. Now you want to trot that point out to make a defense of Coach K? That's a tad hypocritical.
              Huh?

              That's exactly the reason why Larry Brown was a bad fit. He's a long-term coach. He only knows one way, and that way isn't adjustable to a 3-month time frame. I thought we already went over this.

              But that's an argument for another time. I do not think that K 's Duke teams have had a legit halfcourt offense in over a dozen years.
              11, to be exact. That would be the last time he HAD a premier post player to go to.

              His Team USA didn't have legit halfcourt offenses either from 2006 thru 2008. I supposes he coaches by leadership or inspiration because it surely isn't by his halfcourt strategy.
              Well, He hasn't lost a game in 4 years as team USA coach...so I guess he's made the right choices?

              This obsession with "halfcourt strategy" is stupid. There is plenty of evidence in his brilliant coaching in his unconventional rotations and superb defensive schemes. His stamp doesn't have to be on every little thing they do.

              He has the best players on his roster and they are use to playing one-on-one.
              Just a hint...their best players are one-on-one players....

              So he just sits back and watches them do just that. Sometimes you can get away with it, sometimes you can't (as in 2006 and twice in 1990).
              Right. He lets his players play. Amazing concept. A far cry from the obsessive over-coaching I see going on in this tournament. I wish more coaches would learn to do this.

              In the 2004 Olympics, team USA finished 7th out of 12 teams in %FG, and 9th in %3PT. There's you awesome halfcourt offense at work. Larry Brown tried to coach a FIBA team by NBA rules, and failed miserably.

              In the 2008 Olympics, USA finished 1st in %FG, and 6th in %3PT.

              This year, USA is 2nd (out of 24 teams) in %FG and 3rd in %3PT. Not too bad for a guy that can't coach a halfcourt offense, huh?
              Last edited by Kstat; 09-11-2010, 10:48 AM.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                Ugh, Granger's a victim of his terrible defense and shot selection. That is it.

                I don't see any indications that his game will improve and it concerns me. He may score a lot more points now, but he's a hollow version of his former self. He's always had a high 3:2 pt shot ratio, but at least he used to make the defense work. Now they don't have to because he just chucks it.

                What concerns me most is that he conceded that Gay and Iggy are better defenders. Granger could be a much better defender than both of them with his length and power. It's all about effort.

                I'd take the efficient, puts pressure on the defense 15 ppg with defensive effort Granger over the current version 10 times out of 10.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                  I'd disagree that Ganger has as much "length and power" as Andre Igoudala, let alone more...

                  It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                  Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                  Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                  NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    Huh?
                    Huh, what? You shot down my theory last time that Brown failed ultimately in 2004 because his players had been playing together for a short time. Now, all of a sudden you think that's a legit excuse for why K's 2010 team looks horrible in its halfcourt offense.

                    That's exactly the reason why Larry Brown was a bad fit. He's a long-term coach. He only knows one way, and that way isn't adjustable to a 3-month time frame. I thought we already went over this.
                    Brown is much better at TEACHING players than K can ever hope to be. However going back to your point Mr. Long-term Larry Brown seemed to do quite well in 2003 when his team was full of talented veterans. That bunch dominated as much as any of K's teams so far. And that was Brown's first year as head coach of Team USA. That showed he is more flexible then you're giving him credit for. But even if he was as inflexible as you make him out to be and even if he needed more of a long term process, wasn't that supposed to be the plan originally anyhow? Remember that the 2003 team was supposed to play in 2004 as well. But 10 of the 12 guys dropped out. Brown was handed a team in 2004 put together so late they only had about 2 weeks of practice. K has been allowed to work with most of his current players as far back as the summer of 2009. Some even came in for workouts against his Redeem Team in the summer of 2008. K was never handed a bunch of inexperienced misfits. And still even that wasn't enough for K to come up with gold in 2006.

                    11, to be exact. That would be the last time he HAD a premier post player to go to.
                    Is that Brand you're referring to? If so maybe you don't remember Boozer who came in afterwards. Boozer was on Duke for three seasons and never got the touches he should have. K allowed his guards to jack up threes anytime they wanted.

                    Anyway if K didn't have other premier post players since then whose fault is that? He gets top ten recruits each year, including guys who are premier post players coming out of high school. But most of them end up doing next to nothing at Duke. Is that just a case of bad luck in getting guys who were overrated or does K take some of the blame for not being to develop players/make them better?



                    Well, He hasn't lost a game in 4 years as team USA coach...so I guess he's made the right choices?
                    He didn't coach in 2009 if you are including that year. If you are instead including 2006, well, you're wrong. And frankly his teams in 2007 and 2008 after having a year or two under their belt shouldn't have lost any games. He was the ONLY coach of Team USA to have practically the same roster of NBA professionals to play again the following summer and (and then for a third summer in 2008). Since no other coach in the history of the world ever had such an opportunity, I'm going to suggest that we not yet put his record over these last three summers he coached as one of mankind's greatest achievements. But that's just me.

                    This obsession with "halfcourt strategy" is stupid. There is plenty of evidence in his brilliant coaching in his unconventional rotations and superb defensive schemes. His stamp doesn't have to be on every little thing they do.
                    You may be right that the halfcourt strategy is stupid. But please stop acting as if K's coaching technique of limited rotations and allowing guys to "do their thing" is brilliant. That's what most NBA coaches do with their rosters and that's increasingly what many of the NCAA coaches at the top program do.

                    Just a hint...their best players are one-on-one players....
                    Well, that's what I wrote. I simply forgot to add a "d" at the end of the word "use." My point was that he had players who were used to playing one-on-one so he lets them do it. There's not much teamwork required when his teams are on the offensive attack.



                    Right. He lets his players play. Amazing concept. A far cry from the obsessive over-coaching I see going on in this tournament. I wish more coaches would learn to do this.
                    Only if those coaches can have years to work with the top players in practice and on teams. Otherwise that's going to burn us again when an ingternational team is on its game.

                    In the 2004 Olympics, team USA finished 7th out of 12 teams in %FG, and 9th in %3PT. There's you awesome halfcourt offense at work. Larry Brown tried to coach a FIBA team by NBA rules, and failed miserably.
                    Of course they played badly considered the situation they found themselves and how they were thrown together. Now use your impressive research skills and come up with the numbers for the Brown-coached 2003 team that was full of veterans and (at the time) better players than those on the 2004 team.

                    In the 2008 Olympics, USA finished 1st in %FG, and 6th in %3PT.

                    Seriously are you actually going to compare 2008 squad that had been together for three summers with the 2004 team that had been together for as long as a cup of coffee? You do realize that the vast majority of the 2004 guys had never played a minute of international ball before the summer of 2004 and that perhaps half of them had only been around in the NBA for one or two seasons? Are you actually that big of a fan of K to think he was responsible for the better FG% in 2008? You don't think he benefitted from the fact that guys like LeBron, Wade and Carmello got their feet wet in 2004 first? Or that after having them in 2006 and 2007 they were definitely going to be fine-tuned squad by 2008? Are you Dick Vitale or something because its rare that I come across such naked love of Coach K? Not even amongst Duke fans.
                    Last edited by KennerLeaguer; 09-11-2010, 11:31 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                      Look at the measurements. He has the length over Iggy. But the power is all Andre. He is more of a power wing, with greater leaping ability. Danny is less apt to use lower body, most importantly his hips.

                      But Danny is a better scorer.


                      Coach K is perfect for international play. One of the maim reasons why he has not jumped to the NBA.

                      Boozer could jave dominated more in the low post at Duke. One of the main reasons why he slipped. After Coach K squandered that he really hasnt got that player on the low block. mcBob is yet another player inable to develop a low post game at Duke. But that is mostly on him and his frame.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                        Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                        Look at the measurements. He has the length over Iggy. But the power is all Andre. He is more of a power wing, with greater leaping ability. Danny is less apt to use lower body, most importantly his hips.

                        But Danny is a better scorer.


                        Coach K is perfect for international play. One of the maim reasons why he has not jumped to the NBA.

                        Boozer could jave dominated more in the low post at Duke. One of the main reasons why he slipped. After Coach K squandered that he really hasnt got that player on the low block. mcBob is yet another player inable to develop a low post game at Duke. But that is mostly on him and his frame.


                        This.

                        Obviously you've been paying attention to those Duke teams. I'll admit to rooting for Duke from the Brand years through the Boozer seasons. He could have/should have had a couple of more championships during that run rather than the the single championship he came with. Just my opinion though. I think he fell in love with guys like Jason Williams taking threes all game long and haven't looked back since. Boozer however was so underused that people started thinking Maryland's Lonnie Baxter was a better pro prospect.

                        Oh, and since the Laettner days K must have had about 20 McDAAs who were the top big men coming out of high school. Almsot all of them turned out to be busts. That's a lot of players. Some of that is on K and his disinterest in the post game.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                          Look at the measurements. He has the length over Iggy. But the power is all Andre. He is more of a power wing, with greater leaping ability. Danny is less apt to use lower body, most importantly his hips.

                          But Danny is a better scorer.


                          Coach K is perfect for international play. One of the maim reasons why he has not jumped to the NBA.

                          Boozer could jave dominated more in the low post at Duke. One of the main reasons why he slipped. After Coach K squandered that he really hasnt got that player on the low block. mcBob is yet another player inable to develop a low post game at Duke. But that is mostly on him and his frame.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                            I'm not going to argue further with someone so out of touch with reality that he thinks Carlos Boozer is a low-post god...even in the NBA as a 20/10 player he isn't a low post player. Everything he shoots is a pick and roll jumper of transition layup. You have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, and are inventing reality as you go along.

                            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                              A couple of things I wonder about with Granger:

                              1) Couldn't part of his lack on D these last few years be because he's asked to be our primary offensive weapon on teams that weren't exactly stocked with scorers? I thought even the great Kobe Bryant went through this before the Lakers became elite again, where he was asked to focus so much on his scoring that he wasn't considered as elite of a defender for a year or two in the mid (or so) 00's?

                              2) We know Danny had knee concerns coming out of New Mexico. Could that quietly be playing some part in why he plays a more 'reserved' game and just tries to pick his spots?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Granger victim of numbers game with Team USA/Conrad Brunner

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                I'm not going to argue further with someone so out of touch with reality that he thinks Carlos Boozer is a low-post god...even in the NBA as a 20/10 player he isn't a low post player. Everything he shoots is a pick and roll jumper of transition layup. You have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, and are inventing reality as you go along.
                                FYI on Boozer's offensive plays (of which there are a recorded 1,649):

                                0.1% were as the P&R ball handler (a whopping 1 time )
                                1.0% were off screens
                                1.5% were hand offs
                                5.7% were isolation
                                7.3% were in transition
                                7.7% were "all other plays"
                                8.6% were offensive rebounds
                                11.2% were spot-ups
                                13.5% were as the P&R roll man
                                21.5% were post-ups
                                22.1% were cuts

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X