Our best chance of acquiring a star comes from within. At this point, I think the players on the roster with, "star potential" are Collison, Hibbert, and George. Collison could become an immediate star, and this season relies heavily on him. Hibbert could become an all-star, but I don't think he has the ceilling to become a superstar. Rik Smits? Yes. David Robinson? No. George could become a star after a few years of development. I don't think he has the game experience to have signficant, immediate impact.
I invision the Pacers becoming like the Trailblazers of the late 1990's. They did not have superstars on their roster. Yet they had multiple players who were stars (Damon Stoudamire, Rasheed Wallace) and a roster that was deep with talented veterns (Jim Jackson, and Isaiah Rider). Granger is a better player than Rasheed Wallace was in the 90's and Collison could be better than Damon Stoudamire.
The issue, in my opinion, is not developing stars. While I love Indiana, we all have to agree that it is not a "destination" to many 20-something multi-millionaires. After all, as revealed in the LeBron-apocalypse, there are more "money-making opportunites in cities like New York or Los Angeles. Therefore the issue is developing depth. We cannot and will not attract Carmelo to Indianapolis and build a superteam comparable to LeBron, Dwayne, and Chris. What we can do, however, is build a team that is so deep it causes matchup problems through endurance and diversity for teams. That was the challenge the Trailblazers created.
IMO: The Lakers are the best team in the League for that reason. Not only do they have Kobe, Pau, Rob, Lamar, and Andrew; they also have a host of quality players on their bench. Phil Jackson has always been accused of pursuing stars, yet everywhere he goes young talent blossoms.
Depth, is the key to creating a long-term contender in Indiana.
Last edited by 1984; 10-14-2010 at 05:03 PM.
Let me clarify... the teams that I listed are the ones that will contend for championships with-in the next 5-6 years... meaning that the Celtics will have a shot this year but their time is running short... I think that the kings may be okay, but I would give a better chance for the clippers than the kings in 5 years but we will see...
Stars dont lead teams to 40 win seasons while constantly taking bad shots.
08 and Beyond
Last edited by 1984; 10-14-2010 at 05:08 PM.
if star =/= superstar i agree. He'd be a good (not great) 2nd option somewhere
08 and Beyond
I agree with that. Danny is somewhere between a number 1 player and a number 2 player. Knowing that I am a homer, I must face the reality that he is probably a number 2.
With that being said, where do we find a number 1? I think that is a question that 20 or more teams ask every year. They waste their time looking for a superstar. Meanwhile, teams like the Pistons stock up on stars and win championships.
Danny Granger can score with anyone in the league. That automatically makes him a star.
A super star is someone who does it on both ends of the court every single night and a player that other teams are scared of.
A superstar can take a game over at anytime in my opinion
Granger is a star but not a superstar
What he is in realty is an exceptional scorer, almost like a 6'9 Ben Gordon
Sittin on top of the world!
Danny does not penetrate like he should. That's because he has lost his aggressiveness and the system allows it. IMO, it would be unacceptable for any player with a high free throw percentage to not attack the rim. Statistically speaking, you are far more likely to win if your opponent is in foul trouble and your team shoots well from the charity stripe. Getting a player, especially a big man, in foul trouble breaks down a defense, and free shots are free shots.
Danny is not like Ben Gordon. Gordon is not a star and is not as diverse as Danny.
Sittin on top of the world!
Danny Shoots a respectable number of free throws, especially 2 years ago, when he was healthy. The FT numbers imply he gets to the rim more than your suggesting...
Getting fouled on a jumpshot doesn't account for most of them.
Danny Granger averaged 6.9 free throw attempts per game where as Kevin Durrant, LeBron James, and Dwight Howard averaged over 10. Durant and James play on the perimeter, but attack the rim. That means, each game, Durrant and James have the opportunity to score in double figures on free throws alone. Imagine how that enables their team to win.
Don't get me wrong, I have a Granger jersey in the closet. I think the guy is amazing, but I hope he realizes what it takes to win.
Danny also shot 10 two point field goals per game (that means all shots within the perimeter, not necessarily those at the rim) and he shot 7 three point field goals per game (which lead the league).
Danny makes 10 two point attempts, 7 three point attempts, and goes to the free throw line 3 1/2 times per game.
I should add:
In Reggie Miller's best statistical year (89-90) he attempted 15.6 two point attempts per game, 4.41 three point attempts per game (and he was the greatest three point shooter of all time), and almost 8 free throw attempts per game.
In that case, all the more reason to not waste out time looking for superstars. If the "system" doesn't allow a player to dominate the ball why not look for depth first?
Was Reggie Miller a star?
This space for rent.
Of course. He has the all-star games and MVP votes to prove it.
Star by regular season, superstar by playoffs.
Last edited by 1984; 10-16-2010 at 10:56 PM.