Page 4 of 36 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #76
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,538

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Keep in mind, that for Lance to defend the 1 better than Hill, he'd basically have to become one of the two best point defenders in the league. While probably half the board doesn't appreciate Hill's defense because they don't understand how to defend the PnR, realize the rest of the NBA accurately recognizes Hill as one of the best point defenders in the NBA. (on top of that unlike fellow defensive stalwart Mike Conley, Hill can defend the 2, allowing PG to harass the 1).
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  2. #77
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,538

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    For the record, I'm not really opposed to the idea of Lance at point. If the team didn't have a point, it'd be something the team would need to try. I think after a long time, and much development (read: there would be many games that would be train wrecks), Lance could potentially turn into a solid point. However, I don't think his ceiling is as high as Hill's current level at the point. Meanwhile, I think he has an extremely high ceiling at the 2.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  3. #78
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,533

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    For the record, I'm not really opposed to the idea of Lance at point. If the team didn't have a point, it'd be something the team would need to try. I think after a long time, and much development (read: there would be many games that would be train wrecks), Lance could potentially turn into a solid point. However, I don't think his ceiling is as high as Hill's current level at the point. Meanwhile, I think he has an extremely high ceiling at the 2.
    Spot on. I mean, I'm sure LBJ has the skills to play the PG position, but he's still at his best at SF or maybe even PF. Similarly, I think Lance's natural position is SG and Paul's natural position is SF. Why intentionally gimp your best 2 young players when you already have a perfectly good point guard in place?

    I get the loyalty to Granger, I think it's admirable really. But IMO, even at his best he would be less important on this team than Hill simply because Paul G can do everything he does, and better even.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to wintermute For This Useful Post:


  5. #79
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,213

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think I would still prefer Hill to start because I don't think Lance and Paul are good enough against pressure defenses yet.
    I think you have several good arguments for keeping Hill at point. (Although I am open to Lance at that position), such as leadership, a calm head, etc. But the pressure defense thing is not one of them. Lance is actually better than Hill at this.

    Hill struggles, makes turnovers too much when doubled, and looks to be uncomfortable at the end of games when defenses clamp down. Lance excels at avoiding traps at this time of the game, and often Lance's number is called the run the offense in the last two minutes.
    Last edited by McKeyFan; 10-31-2013 at 08:22 AM.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to McKeyFan For This Useful Post:


  7. #80
    FREE LANCE MillerTime's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,844

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    I would never put Lance at the PG position, especially start him there. There's no way we move Hill and give Lance the starting role.

    Lance is a natural scorer, you don't put scorers at the PG position (example: AI was moved to SG and Snow played PG)
    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.



  8. #81
    Droppin' knowledge, yo. Mackey_Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The Dragon's Lair
    Posts
    4,140

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Until Granger proves that he can actually play, there's no reason to even consider him as a reason to make a major change. If he does play, it's a bonus. He better figure out how to help the team by coming off the bench. If he can't figure out how to do that, he either needs to be shipped out, or fitted for a permanent suit. If he doesn't play, we contend for a title anyway.

    As I said last year, Granger is superfluous.

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mackey_Rose For This Useful Post:


  10. #82
    Come Home Lance! BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,993

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Torn a bit on this. I want Lance on the floor but I don't care if he's labeled PG or SG. In either case I want him to initiate a lot of the offense. The key is that he has the skills to clean up his mistakes and imo the desire to do that. Given more time, I believe the rookie mistakes will continue to be less frequent...and his good plays will increase. Let him play like a poor man's LeBron because that is really who he is.

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BlueNGold For This Useful Post:


  12. #83
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,834

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think you have several good arguments for keeping Hill at point. (Although I am open to Lance at that position), such as leadership, a calm head, etc. But the pressure defense thing is not one of them. Lance is actually better than Hill at this.

    Hill struggles, makes turnovers too much when doubled, and looks to be uncomfortable at the end of games when defenses clamp down. Lance excels at avoiding traps at this time of the game, and often Lance's number is called the run the offense in the last two minutes.
    If you think Lance is really trusted with the ball at the end of games, I invite you to pay attention to the next handful of close games. Unless Lance is lighting it up in the fourth quarter, the ball will go to Hill first. I have a feeling more games will end like last night with Lance being the tertiary ballhandler for the last 5 minutes of games.

  13. #84

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If you think Lance is really trusted with the ball at the end of games, I invite you to pay attention to the next handful of close games. Unless Lance is lighting it up in the fourth quarter, the ball will go to Hill first. I have a feeling more games will end like last night with Lance being the tertiary ballhandler for the last 5 minutes of games.
    He may not be completely trusted yet, but that doesn't mean he's not capable. He just needs reps.

  14. #85
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    4,217

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Lance’s biggest issue last year was consistency. For every good game he had 4 bad games were his mistakes outweighed his contributions. We’re 2 games in and although he’s made some stupid mistakes there haven’t been that many and his contributions for those 2 games have outweighed his mistakes. I’d like to wait until we see how he plays for the first 20 games to see if he’s really grown up yet. If he does continue at this level or even improves on it, I hate to say it but he’s gone. We won’t be able to afford another salary over 5-6 mil. and I don’t see Bird moving Hill.
    I'll be interested to see how things pan out when Granger gets inserted into the lineup. Through the point he was injured he had earned the starting spot IMO. It would fullish to ignore that now but he'll need to show some consistancy himself before being trusted with it now.

  15. #86

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    OK. Nobody really wanted Lance in the draft. Bird took a chance with him. He put Lance under his wing (hahahha) and brought him along. Always showing confidence and faith in him. He was the only player that Bird kept in touch on his year off. Lance pretty much owes where he's at in the league today to the guy that's going to negotiate for him to stay with this team.

    How do you say NO to Bird ?? I know, I know - $$$$. But turning your back on the guy who helped get you to this level ................

  16. #87
    Grumpy Old Man (PD host) able's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    8,706

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by PacerDude View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    OK. Nobody really wanted Lance in the draft. Bird took a chance with him. He put Lance under his wing (hahahha) and brought him along. Always showing confidence and faith in him. He was the only player that Bird kept in touch on his year off. Lance pretty much owes where he's at in the league today to the guy that's going to negotiate for him to stay with this team.

    How do you say NO to Bird ?? I know, I know - $$$$. But turning your back on the guy who helped get you to this level ................
    that's why you have an agent (remembers Brad) you can always say "i never thought that would happen!"
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to able For This Useful Post:


  18. #88
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,729

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Lance certainly has a great relationship with Bird, but he's going to chase the money, as he should. By NBA standards, he's been making absolute chump change for the last four seasons. He's seen all of his teammates make the millions, and he's going to be eager to finally cash in himself. If the Pacers can pay him, then he'll be happy to stay, but if they can't then it will be sayonara.

    Young dudes don't leave money on the table when they're signing the first big contract of their careers. Everyone used to say how loyal Roy was to the Pacers, but he was ready to bolt for Portland in a heartbeat if the Pacers wouldn't have ponied up the money.

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sollozzo For This Useful Post:


  20. #89
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's a very big assumption that you are making there

    I don't think that he will return to form...as in pre-injury form.....but I think that he will be able to contribute at a "6th Man" level to make a difference. He'll be able to contribute more than Chris Copeland/OJ/Solo but at most "on par" with Lance ( assuming that he's able to play about 75% of his game, of course ).

    JMHO, of course.
    Well this is the "BIG IF'S" thread, after all.

    I don't really have the desire to argue about Granger vs. Hill, so I'll just say that I was writing under the assumption that Danny will be back and playing soon, and furthermore that he will look good / like his old self for most of the season. I would loosely definie his old self as how he was in the lockout season, but part of me thinks he might shoot a better FG% now that he's surrounded by talent, some of it superior talent, on offense.

    If that's the Danny we're getting, I happen to prefer his size and game on the wing with Paul George more than I prefer George Hill on the wing next to PG. I believe Hill can spend some time at the wing, but I don't like the idea of doing that to start and end games.

    I think those who felt his ideal place is as the first guard off the bench were right. He would basically be playing the role Leandro Barbosa played in the lockout season, and I think he would still help us a lot there.

    That having all been said, I also believe this is all mere fantasy. Until proven otherwise, I assume he will start at PG all year long.

    I just like this idea because I think it would be even better than what we already have, but I also think it's likely going to remain a fantasy.

  21. #90
    Member Eleazar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,505

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Lance certainly has a great relationship with Bird, but he's going to chase the money, as he should. By NBA standards, he's been making absolute chump change for the last four seasons. He's seen all of his teammates make the millions, and he's going to be eager to finally cash in himself. If the Pacers can pay him, then he'll be happy to stay, but if they can't then it will be sayonara.

    Young dudes don't leave money on the table when they're signing the first big contract of their careers. Everyone used to say how loyal Roy was to the Pacers, but he was ready to bolt for Portland in a heartbeat if the Pacers wouldn't have ponied up the money.
    Yeah, between Lance and Danny if one of them is going to give the Pacers a discount it would be Danny. Even then it probably wouldn't be a huge discount. If Lance keeps up his current play we are going to have to hope that OJ and Solo can step up next season as it is unlikely we will be able to keep Lance or Danny.

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Eleazar For This Useful Post:


  23. #91
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I love huge lineups, and I suspect the main reason Hicks even considers Lance as a possible starting point is simply because he's huge for a point. Size means everything defensively. (this is why I wanted G3 to start in the first place)

    However, I don't think a Lance/PG/Danny/West/Roy lineup can potentially be better than a Hill/PG/Danny/West/Roy lineup defensively.

    The lineup with Hill has the flexibility I think to be even more imposing than the the lineup with Lance. First off, I don't think Lance will ever be quick enough to consistently defend the one on a weekly basis. Against some matchup yes, but others he'll get destroyed. Now the nice thing with a Hill lineup, is if we want to attack the point position with size, we can by putting PG on the point and having Hill defend the 2, something he can do quite well except for a few matchups.

    Keep in mind tho, this would not necessarily work with Lance, because you'd have to DEPEND on PG to defend the point versus defending it in spurts. I don't think PG can defend that position full time either.

    In actual real life game play, the lineup with Hill is better defensively AND more imposing. Also, remember that Hill is long as **** so when Lance is at the 1, he's not offering much more length to the position. Size and strength? Yes. But does it matter? No point guard in the league can overpower Hill so they don't have an advantage there, so in the end, you aren't really giving the 1 position that big of an advantage in terms of sheer size.

    Lance should always prove a better 2 defender than Hill it should be noted. His strength there is much more important. No two will use their size against Lance, though they would against Hill in select matchups...
    I'm pretty sure Lance has a 6'11" wingspan. He's huge.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  25. #92
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Until Granger proves that he can actually play, there's no reason to even consider him as a reason to make a major change. If he does play, it's a bonus. He better figure out how to help the team by coming off the bench. If he can't figure out how to do that, he either needs to be shipped out, or fitted for a permanent suit. If he doesn't play, we contend for a title anyway.

    As I said last year, Granger is superfluous.
    It's not really about Danny as much as it's about being huge and aggressive and maximizing talent in one 5-man group, to me. Danny deserves to be one of those five if he can come all the way back (or very close), but if not him, I'd even be interested in finding another wing to play with Paul and keep Lance at the 1 in this fantasy scenario. Maybe one day that can be Orlando Johnson, or someone we acquire later.

  26. #93
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    As for financial troubles ahead, one 'what if' would be to unload Watson and Copeland's contracts this summer, which only makes sense if my Lance-at-point fantasy became reality. That would be extra cash either to pay Lance if he's able to command it, or if we're very lucky, enough to keep him and Danny if Danny doesn't demand much coin (relatively speaking; I have no idea how big or small his next contract will look like; he might not even get one if he really does have ongoing issues). Just throwing it out there.

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  28. #94
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    42
    Posts
    25,493

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    As for financial troubles ahead, one 'what if' would be to unload Watson and Copeland's contracts this summer, which only makes sense if my Lance-at-point fantasy became reality. That would be extra cash either to pay Lance if he's able to command it, or if we're very lucky, enough to keep him and Danny if Danny doesn't demand much coin (relatively speaking; I have no idea how big or small his next contract will look like; he might not even get one if he really does have ongoing issues). Just throwing it out there.
    Short of moving some 2 man combination of CJ, Copeland and Mahinmi.....I am 99% certain that it will come down to Lance OR Granger...not both.

    Nothing is impossible for Bird after transforming Green+Plumlee+1st into Scola....but I think it will be very difficult. We simply have no assets to move Contracts like CJ, Copeand or Mahinmi.

    At this point...I'm just hoping that the Pacers can re-sign Lance at $6 mil a year.

    Can someone tell me if the Pacers are able to offer Lance a 5 year contract as opposed to a 4 year contract ( like what other Teams can )?

    I assume that even as a 2nd round pick that is a UFA...the Pacers have some advantage over other Teams in trying to re-sign their Free Agents.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  29. #95
    Member Eleazar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,505

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Short of moving some 2 man combination of CJ, Copeland and Mahinmi.....I am 99% certain that it will come down to Lance OR Granger...not both.

    Nothing is impossible for Bird after transforming Green+Plumlee+1st into Scola....but I think it will be very difficult. We simply have no assets to move Contracts like CJ, Copeand or Mahinmi.

    At this point...I'm just hoping that the Pacers can re-sign Lance at $6 mil a year.

    Can someone tell me if the Pacers are able to offer Lance a 5 year contract as opposed to a 4 year contract ( like what other Teams can )?

    I assume that even as a 2nd round pick that is a UFA...the Pacers have some advantage over other Teams in trying to re-sign their Free Agents.
    I don't think it would be all that difficult to move any of those players. CJ isn't overpayed, if anything he is underpayed. I think Mahinmi's contract might be overpaying for a guard with a similar level of skill, for a center he isn't overpayed either. I also don't think it would be a smart move to move Mahinmi. What he brings to the bench is extremely important for our defense. Copeland is probably overpayed, but people, even GMs, tend to fall in love with offense.

  30. #96

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    The 2 is perfect for Lance giving him freedom to freelance. if we need assists he gives the team assists, if we need rebounds he can do that. He can fast brake and can pass. He plays best when he is under the radar and as such he seems to be in the perfect spot as the starting 2.

  31. #97
    Member TinManJoshua's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    1,492

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Shot across the bow: Danny's next contract will be smaller than George Hill's current one. Bank on it.

  32. #98
    Member Eleazar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,505

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by TinManJoshua View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Shot across the bow: Danny's next contract will be smaller than George Hill's current one. Bank on it.
    Don't think that is really all that controversial. He is 30, coming off a major knee injury, and going to play a diminished role where his stats aren't as high.

  33. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Eleazar For This Useful Post:


  34. #99

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Hopefully it'll be low enough where we can keep him.

    Or perhaps he'll want to stay regardless. This team has the potential to be a contender for quite a few years. And if Danny wants to be on a contender and feels like he has enough money...

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to Sookie For This Useful Post:


  36. #100
    Droppin' knowledge, yo. Mackey_Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The Dragon's Lair
    Posts
    4,140

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sookie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Hopefully it'll be low enough where we can keep him.

    Or perhaps he'll want to stay regardless. This team has the potential to be a contender for quite a few years. And if Danny wants to be on a contender and feels like he has enough money...
    And if he wants to go to whichever terrible team offers him a penny more, nobody should begrudge him even a little bit.

  37. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mackey_Rose For This Useful Post:


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •