The choice hinges on two factors: Granger's health status
whether the overall offense / defense is better with a:
younger, quicker player who is more of a facilitator but is more likely to make mistakes born of aggression on both ends of the court
an older, slower player who is a far more consistent scoring threat from the perimeter and is less of a facilitator but probably will be unable to cover as much ground defensively due to a lack of lateral quickness and may prove to be more of a defensive liability because of it
For me, Lance starts because the overall performance of the team on both ends of the floor is probably better, while adding Granger to the subs gives Granger huge advantages for scoring from all areas of the court against clearly inferior competition while not exposing his probable defensive weaknesses nearly as much. Granger and Scola with Copeland would likely provide a lineup that would outscore the opposition more often than not regardless of their defensive performance.
It is wonderful to even be having such a discussion, though! We've come a long way, baby!!!!!
Granger's health will dictate a lot of this. But really, I don't like the thought of Paul being pushed further out on the perimeter to guard quick SG's...when he is so effective on the glass and help defense. I think a big reason we were so effective defensively is that Paul played his natural position on defense...which is SF.
Not really. Paul will be guarding the other teams main perimeter threat regardless of them being a 2 or 3. Paul is better guarding smaller quicker players than he is guarding bigger, stronger SF's who just take him inside. Also when Danny was our starter two years ago, we were still one of the top rebounding and defensive teams in the league. (and that was with DC starting for most of the year)
Also though Lance is a decent defender, it's not as if he is a lockdown defender by any means that hum going to the bench would hurt our team tremendously on defense
Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 09-16-2013 at 12:48 AM.
It shocks me how underrated Lance is here.
Whether he starts this year or not, we need to get him on a long term contract.
I read the same thread and it shocks me how over rated he is. I see a good player who is inconsistent but shows flashes of great play and flashes of poor play.
He averaged 8.8 ppg, 3.9 boards, and 2.8 assist in 29 minutes as a starter and was a good defender. I don't know how calling him good can be underrating him. Not every player has to be an all star to be good. What I don't understand is how the guy who led this team in scoring for 5 years is automatically a lesser player then Lance at the age of 30 just because he's coming back from an injury and knee surgery. Danny at 40 should be able to average more then 8 ppg and defend the post better then Lance did last year and that's not a slam on Lance that's just how good Granger is.
It's not reasonable to just assume that Lance is going to grow that much in 1 summer and Danny will take that many steps backward.
Having said that I agree with you that we need to lock Lance down to a long term contract if we can but only if it reflects his current level of production which should be in the neighborhood of Ian's contract.
Granger's injury is much more mysterious. It's why there isn't one consistent treatment plan. And while they are hopeful about the surgery fixing the problem, that won't be known until he starts playing consistently again.
It also has a wide range of outcomes. Granger could be the same player he was two years ago or even better (if the knee has been bothering him for a while) almost as soon as he steps on the court. Or he could never be close to the same player again. It's really all up in the air, and is much less certain that the effects of an ACL tear.
Somebody should tell Brandon Roy not to worry because David West recovered just fine lol
Last edited by vnzla81; 09-16-2013 at 01:22 PM.
Danny Granger isn't a great enough player to make anyone biased enough to "crap" on the best player on the team and important young piece of our team. I think some posters just happen to appreciate what he brings and has brought to the table throughout his career.
It is pointless to discuss Danny Granger in any capacity with you because anyone who doesn't fall into your worldview that Danny is a useless pointless washed up never was really that good anyway of a player is a "fanboy" so instead of wasting valuable time and effort I just present you the following
By the way what kind of music are you going to play when the White horse doesn't show up?
“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.
"And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "
Want your own "Just Say No to Kamen" from @mkroeger pic? http://twitpic.com/a3hmca
Which is what makes this conversation so intriguing. The granger arguments have to assume he will be healthy and the lance arguments have to assume he will get better because any granger that's going to come back is going to be at least as good as lance was last season.
Adjust the levels of greatness a bit, and this is almost exactly the same decision irsay made with regards to manning/luck. The only thing is that we have a year. Which is great for fans. I doubt both will disappoint, and if they are both great next season Bird can't really make a bad decision. Because the next season ppl will be geared into how great the team is doing at that point.