Page 20 of 36 FirstFirst ... 1016171819202122232430 ... LastLast
Results 476 to 500 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #476
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    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
    Who are these "It has only been 3 games" people that you are referring to?
    I'm pretty sure you got to read the whole thread and you know who I'm talking about, here is one of the comments:

    And jesus, seriously, you're talking about his shooting numbers after TWO GAMES? I hope he shoots well this season, we'll find out, but 2 games tells us nothing other than he just had two good games!

  2. #477
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rm1369 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I can't believe its even a discussion. Can you imagine the uproar if the rolls were reversed - DG was a contributing member of the best starting unit in the league and people were suggesting he be benched for a player that hadn't played in a year and wasn't even currently healthy? You know - for the good of the team all. There would be riots!!!
    No doubt, if I was the one suggesting it I would have been trashed long time ago and people would be telling me how I hate the Pacers and all that crap they always tell me lol

    I mean I remember suggesting doing pretty much what Larry did and I got blasted, I got the "OMG why are you trying to destroy our team OMG".

  3. #478
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,285

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Sure there can be an exception. But I would prefer that we have someone on the starting unit more capable of feeding the post. We have a 7'2" center and a PF who appreciates the ball being placed just perfectly and Lance is the only one who can do that. Let him develop that skill.
    I understand that Lance may be very good at passing the ball and has great court vision, but there is no one else in the Starting Lineup that is capable of doing that now?

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Where some of you want a shooter, I want a basketball player with a lot more skills. Passing, dribbling AND shooting. Lance is getting better by the day. Danny is getting older and isn't even healthy. Not even sure why anyone is thinking someone other than Lance would be the starter given the fact we had the best starting unit in the NBA last year and the alternative is to bring on a guy just coming off surgery...
    I have explained several times what role I want Lance to play in the lineup. If that role translates into Granger being inserted into the Starting lineup as a 4th / 5th Scoring option and making Lance a super-6th Man while improving the 2nd unit....then that's what I want for the rest of the season.

    We can simply agree to disagree.
    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.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CableKC For This Useful Post:


  5. #479
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    14,880

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's who finishes that matters. Lance will be there to finish as I have said so many times.
    So, when "it matters" Lance will be in there huh? Ok, we are making progress. Now I need to know why in the world you want him to be 6th man.

    I think I know the answer...at least for some people. They want Granger to stretch the floor and Lance to create off the bench. If so, that isn't factoring in A LOT of stuff and I completely disagree with it. I understand it fully though...

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to BlueNGold For This Useful Post:


  7. #480
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    18,776

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No doubt, if I was the one suggesting it I would have been trashed long time ago and people would be telling me how I hate the Pacers and all that crap they always tell me lol

    I mean I remember suggesting doing pretty much what Larry did and I got blasted.
    You suggested to trade Granger for Monta Ellis. Everyone would be blasted for suggesting a trade for Monta Ellis.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  8. #481
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    14,880

    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
    I understand that Lance may be very good at passing the ball and has great court vision, but there is no one else in the Starting Lineup that is capable of doing that now?


    I have explained several times what role I want Lance to play in the lineup. If that role translates into Granger being inserted into the Starting lineup as a 4th / 5th Scoring option and making Lance a super-6th Man while improving the 2nd unit....then that's what I want for the rest of the season.

    We can simply agree to disagree.
    I thanked your post and appreciate it. I fully disagree with it though. I've posted many, many reasons why I disagree with it...while also fully understanding that view.

  9. #482
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    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
    I understand that Lance may be very good at passing the ball and has great court vision, but there is no one else in the Starting Lineup that is capable of doing that now?


    I have explained several times what role I want Lance to play in the lineup. If that role translates into Granger being inserted into the Starting lineup as a 4th / 5th Scoring option and making Lance a super-6th Man while improving the 2nd unit....then that's what I want for the rest of the season.

    We can simply agree to disagree.
    What is the obsession to make Lance a super sub when he can be a super starter?

  10. #483
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,349

    Sports Logo 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
    Why can't there be an exception here like there was an exception made with the Spurs and Manu?
    Why do we need to be an exception? That's the whole point. This team is winning with Lance playing awesome ball as a starter, yet people seem to want to make this team an exception just so that we can say it's an exception.

    rm1369 brings up a brilliant point about the reversal of the roles. Say Lance had suffered an injury in the pre-season and Danny was healthy. Further, say Danny had started the season with Lance's line of 19/6.7/4.0 on 59.5% shooting. If that would have happened, people would be starting threads about how Granger was on the verge of surpassing Reggie as the greatest Pacer ever. They would have discussions on who would be there to induct Danny into the HOF. There would be pitchforks if anyone would suggest that Lance should start with Granger putting up stats like that.

    People say that Lance needs to control the ball, but he's controlling the ball plenty now. It's getting to the point that it would be completely unnecessary to mess with our starting lineup right now. At some point it starts to seem like people want Granger starting simply because they want Granger starting, regardless of how well Lance plays. Not talking to you directly Cable, but that's just the general vibe I get.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-03-2013 at 10:26 PM.

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Sollozzo For This Useful Post:


  12. #484
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    14,880

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

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What is the obsession to make Lance a super sub when he can be a super starter?
    Pick your reason:

    1) People think Granger will return to form
    2) People think stretching the floor to free Hibbert and/or West is more important than many other things Lance does...including stretch the floor.
    3) People are closet Lance lovers. They want to see him run wild with the bench...knowing he will have the "ball in his hands"...whatever that means.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to BlueNGold For This Useful Post:


  14. #485
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    18,776

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So, when "it matters" Lance will be in there huh? Ok, we are making progress. Now I need to know why in the world you want him to be 6th man.

    I think I know the answer...at least for some people. They want Granger to stretch the floor and Lance to create off the bench. If so, that isn't factoring in A LOT of stuff and I completely disagree with it. I understand it fully though...
    What progress are we making? I have answered to those same questions at least 3 times in the last 5 pages. I have bolded and underlined the most important parts of my posts. I believe that I have made myself perfectly clear and you keep asking me the same damn things. This discussion is going circles and I don't even know why. Why are you ignoring my original posts and keep asking things that I have already answered before?

    Yes, I want Lance closing games!

    I want Lance to be the 6th man because this allows us to have a constant offensive flow from our wing position. Staggering the minutes of our two primary shot creators (Lance and Paul George) will allow us to get higher quality shots at all times. It also enables us to do this without running both of them into the ground and keeping them fresh.

    I want to compliment our two bigs with great spot up shooters. We already know that Paul George and George Hill are great spot up shooters. I don't care if that 3rd shooter is called Lance Stephenson, Danny Granger or Harry the Martian. I just want that 5th starter to be a great spot up shooter.

    I hold the belief that Larry Bird will do anything in his power to keep Lance this summer.

    I think that this sums up my posts. I honestly hate bolding so much text but I'm tired of writing the same things over and over again and having people ignore them every time.

    I really hope that I made myself clear.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  15. #486
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    18,776

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What is the obsession to make Lance a super sub when he can be a super starter?
    Because it will turn a good bench to a super amazing bench.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  16. #487
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,349

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Because it will turn a good bench to a super amazing bench.
    So would putting Paul George or Roy Hibbert on the bench.

  17. #488
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    18,776

    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
    rm1369 brings up a brilliant point about the reversal of the roles. Say Lance had suffered an injury in the pre-season and Danny was healthy. Further, say Danny had started the season with Lance's line of 19/6.7/4.0 on 59.5% shooting. If that would have happened, people would be starting threads about how Granger was on the verge of surpassing Reggie as the greatest Pacer ever. They would have discussions on who would be there to induct Danny into the HOF. There would be pitchforks if anyone would suggest that Lance should start with Granger putting up stats like that.
    Would Granger make our bench much, much better like Lance does in this case? If yes, then I would want him to become the 6th man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    People say that Lance needs to control the ball, but he's controlling the ball plenty now. It's getting to the point that it would be completely unnecessary to mess with our starting lineup right now. At some point it starts to seem like people want Granger starting simply because they want Granger starting, regardless of how well Lance plays. Not talking to you directly Cable, but that's just the general vibe I get.
    It's also starting to think that some people want Granger on the bench simply because they want Granger on the bench. Not talking to you directly Sollozzo, but that's just the general vibe I get.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  18. #489
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,349

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Would Granger make our bench much, much better like Lance does in this case? If yes, then I would want him to become the 6th man.
    There is plenty of opportunity for Lance to play with both the starters and the bench, as the first three games have shown. Lance has shown that he has positive qualities to add to both. He can make bench players better while still starting the first curcial minutes of the game. As the playoffs showed us, the first few minutes of a game are crucial. It's best that the Pacers continue to roll with what has worked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's also starting to think that some people want Granger on the bench simply because they want Granger on the bench. Not talking to you directly Sollozzo, but that's just the general vibe I get.
    The difference is that those who want Lance as a starter base their opinions off of the games that have been played for the past year, while those who want Granger to start are completely living in a "what if" world.

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


  20. #490
    Member ilive4sports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    6,816

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What is the obsession to make Lance a super sub when he can be a super starter?
    Why did Pop make Manu the sixth man? Why was Harden the sixth man in OKC? Because sometimes it makes more sense for the team. Thats why.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to ilive4sports For This Useful Post:


  22. #491
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    18,776

    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
    So would putting Paul George or Roy Hibbert on the bench.
    Not really. Putting Roy on the bench wouldn't work that well. Roy needs spacing to get to work and our bench's shooting isn't as good as the shooting of our starting line-up. That would lead to more double teams for Roy.

    I guess that putting Paul George on the bench could have a similar result but we would lose our lock-down defender in the starting unit.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  23. #492
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,349

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ilive4sports View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why did Pop make Manu the sixth man? Why was Harden the sixth man in OKC? Because sometimes it makes more sense for the team. Thats why.
    Neither of those teams are the Pacers and neither of those players are Lance/Granger. Therefore, those examples have no value to our situation. Also, both of those teams had PG's (Westbrook, Parker) who could be relied on to completely control the ball. Hill has weaknesses with that at time and Lance aids with that. Therefore, Lance needs to start.

  24. #493

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Would Granger make our bench much, much better like Lance does in this case? If yes, then I would want him to become the 6th man.



    It's also starting to think that some people want Granger on the bench simply because they want Granger on the bench. Not talking to you directly Sollozzo, but that's just the general vibe I get.
    It's been said several times you can have that without benching Lance, but you think that will somehow lead to them accidentally playing Lance and PG 40 mins. I honestly don't know what to say to that. I can only assume you want DG starting and that's that. How do you accidentally play someone 40 mins per? Whatever.

  25. #494
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Pick your reason:

    1) People think Granger will return to form
    2) People think stretching the floor to free Hibbert and/or West is more important than many other things Lance does...including stretch the floor.
    3) People are closet Lance lovers. They want to see him run wild with the bench...knowing he will have the "ball in his hands"...whatever that means.
    4)Some people have a mancrush on Danny Granger.

    5)Some people have been proven wrong and still don't want to admit it.

    6) Some people still hate Lance for something he did 3 years ago.

  26. #495
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    18,776

    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
    There is plenty of opportunity for Lance to play with both the starters and the bench, as the first three games have shown. Lance has shown that he has positive qualities to add to both. He can make bench players better while still starting the first curcial minutes of the game. As the playoffs showed us, the first few minutes of a game are crucial. It's best that the Pacers continue to roll with what has worked.
    As I have already said twice to you if Lance keeps this up then I'm extremely glad that he is used the way he is. I never said that Lance doesn't have positive qualities to add to both units. I have made pretty clear that I believe that Lance is an amazing player.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The difference is that those who want Lance as a starter base their opinions off of the games that have been played for the past year, while those who want Granger to start are completely living in a "what if" world.
    Do you know what is the issue? I just don't see those comments as pro-Lance comments. McKeyFan who has been the most outspoken supporter of the "Free Lance" movement has agreed that the idea of Lance coming off the bench, being a super 6th man and closing games has merit. The only posters who have been 100% against this idea without seeing any merit whatsoever in it are the same posters that used to criticize Granger any chance they got in the past and wanted to see him traded. Is this a coincidence? I really don't think so..
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  27. #496
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    18,776

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rm1369 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's been said several times you can have that without benching Lance, but you think that will somehow lead to them accidentally playing Lance and PG 40 mins. I honestly don't know what to say to that. I can only assume you want DG starting and that's that. How do you accidentally play someone 40 mins per? Whatever.
    I have also supported the idea of starting OJ/Solo while bringing both Lance and Danny off the bench in the past. This has nothing to do with Granger.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  28. #497
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    18,776

    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
    Neither of those teams are the Pacers and neither of those players are Lance/Granger. Therefore, those examples have no value to our situation. Also, both of those teams had PG's (Westbrook, Parker) who could be relied on to completely control the ball. Hill has weaknesses with that at time and Lance aids with that. Therefore, Lance needs to start.
    Those teams had PGs and our team has Paul George. PG can aid Hill just fine.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  29. #498

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I have also supported the idea of starting OJ/Solo while bringing both Lance and Danny off the bench in the past. This has nothing to do with Granger.
    Which would also be a horrible idea. You are gaurenteeing we play 14 mins a game against the other teams best unit with an inferior unit. All so you can get a few extra minutes of Lance with the bench. Having one of your best players come off the bench is an exception for a reason.

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to rm1369 For This Useful Post:


  31. #499
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,873

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacergeek View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The Granger/Lance debate is getting more hilarious each day. Stephenson is an all-star THIS YEAR. Granger, even at 100%, is not an all star. You don't cut out minuets from your all-star player to accommodate a role player coming back from injury EVER!!!
    You're right about it getting more hilarious. It's been 3 games already and we're only talking all star for Stephenson. Where's the mvp thread?

  32. #500

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Those teams had PGs and our team has Paul George. PG can aid Hill just fine.
    Not yet Nuntius. He's getting better, but I believe Lance taking some of that pressure off Paul helps him a great deal.

Posting Permissions

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