Page 13 of 36 FirstFirst ... 39101112131415161723 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 325 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #301
    Gotta Play Big
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,754

    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
    You know, Danny Granger can do more than hit threes...
    Not at the moment and I think people need to start adjusting expectations. Part of the issue here is that some of us don't believe he's coming back 100%. Most players who take a year off don't come back 100% and many are rusty the entire year. This is not the whole story on this issue, but it's part of it. Danny isn't going to be the same player again and people need to come to terms with that.

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


  3. #302

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

    All I know is regardless who starts, we will be a better team because in the end, you are adding a former all star.

    The addition of Granger (if right) is no joke. We are going to be so much better if Granger develops chemistry with the team.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to The Future For This Useful Post:


  5. #303

    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
    Not at the moment and I think people need to start adjusting expectations. Part of the issue here is that some of us don't believe he's coming back 100%. Most players who take a year off don't come back 100% and many are rusty the entire year. This is not the whole story on this issue, but it's part of it. Danny isn't going to be the same player again and people need to come to terms with that.
    I would imagine that the arguments being made here are the assumption that Danny is going to be Danny. If he's not, and Lance keeps playing at his current level than there isn't an argument.

    If he is, and Lance returns to the level he played at last season, then there isn't an argument. (or there shouldn't be..)

    If they are close, then it's debatable.

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


  7. #304
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,568

    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
    No one is saying that Granger needs to start because it will be where he looks best. They say thats how the team will look best, because Granger fits with the starters better than the bench, while Lance fits with both. We don't believe the starting 5 will suffer with Granger compared to with Lance starting, but we think the bench will play better with Lance rather than with Granger.
    Those are some pretty massive ifs that look increasingly unlikely with each passing game.

  8. #305
    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 Sookie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Not next to Harden, in the Houston scenario, he wouldn't.

    BTW: Jeremy Lin was a better player than Lance the past two seasons, and his statistics are about equal to that of Lance so far this season. Nice to try, but way to ultimately miss the point.

    You want a closing lineup. Assuming everyone is healthy and we are keeping to a "rule", I expect the five on the floor would be Hill, PG, Granger, Hibbert, and West. Because at full strength, Granger is better until proven otherwise. And no, three games doesn't prove otherwise.

    But I think that idea is silly, because Vogel has shown he'll go with who is playing best. Although I don't know that he'll take out Roy again. (Even though, IMO, he made the right call statistically.) PG and Roy are the only guarantees. (Although Hill better be there if we need a basket..)

    edit: Easier might also mean "health" wise. I'm not sure if it's the same for Danny's injury. But I've seen some players who come back from knee injuries where they need to start, because letting the knee sit after warming it up, stiffens the knee.
    The report is that Houston is looking to drop Lin to whoever wants him he is not that good reason why he doesn't start and any smart coach would start current Lance with Harden those 2 together could give teams a lot of trouble.

  9. #306

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

    So many unknowns regarding Danny. I don't know much about his injury but 3 weeks for him to return seems like alot. I don't know that the pacers aren't dealing with some injury that is more serious.

    Often by the time they come clean the player needs surgery.

  10. #307

    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
    The report is that Houston is looking to drop Lin to whoever wants him he is not that good reason why he doesn't start and any smart coach would start current Lance with Harden those 2 together could give teams a lot of trouble.
    Dude, there's only one ball.

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


  12. #308
    Gotta Play Big
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,754

    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
    I would imagine that the arguments being made here are the assumption that Danny is going to be Danny. If he's not, and Lance keeps playing at his current level than there isn't an argument.

    If he is, and Lance returns to the level he played at last season, then there isn't an argument. (or there shouldn't be..)

    If they are close, then it's debatable.
    Danny's 30 going on 31. He's not getting better by the day like Lance. He's coming off a knee injury. Jumper's knee and basketball don't mix well. I don't believe he will be back next year IF the Pacers can resign Lance. I don't believe we will see Granger operate at a high level again as a Pacer. If I did, I might approach this a little different but even then I think there are enough facts to show that adding Granger to the bench is the easy thing to do to make this team much better and reduce the risks involved with his injury screwing up the starting unit.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BlueNGold For This Useful Post:


  14. #309

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

    Quote Originally Posted by speakout4 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So many unknowns regarding Danny. I don't know much about his injury but 3 weeks for him to return seems like alot. I don't know that the pacers aren't dealing with some injury that is more serious.

    Often by the time they come clean the player needs surgery.
    I am still in shock that Granger was playing garbage time in another country in a meaningless pre season game.

    There was plenty of preseason games left to get him in "game shape."

    Could be a blessing in disguise though since Stephenson is breaking out now.

  15. #310
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,568

    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
    I would imagine that the arguments being made here are the assumption that Danny is going to be Danny. If he's not, and Lance keeps playing at his current level than there isn't an argument.

    If he is, and Lance returns to the level he played at last season, then there isn't an argument. (or there shouldn't be..)

    If they are close, then it's debatable.

    If Danny returns to near his prime form after not playing consistent ball in a year and a half, while Lance reverts back to playing like a timid player who is playing his first big NBA minutes........

    Does that really sound likely to you? Lance is clearly starting to "get it" and has far more confidence in himself (as well as from his coaches) than he had last year, while Granger continues to sit in suits on the sidelines (after shooting a lousy 30 something percent in the pre-season). One of these players continues to get better every day, while the other hasn't done anything in a long long time.

    I'm not trying to sound cold and I understand that this is a sensitive topic for some people. But this team is all in right now. We need home court advantage to have the best shot at Miami. Why would mess around with a lineup that has worked perfect for a year just boggles my mind. In sports, sometimes guys lose their spot to injury. It sucks, but that's just the way it is.

    The Lakers will obviously rearrange their team when Kobe comes back because he makes them an infinitely better team. But the Pacers don't need to do that for Granger. We're better than ever right now and don't need to rearrange what's working so well.

  16. #311
    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 Sookie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Dude, there's only one ball.
    You are acting like Lance can't pass the ball like Danny, actually the reason I don't want Danny in the starting unit is because there is only one ball and we all know how he likes to deflate it and how he likes to jackup shots, Lance is more of a team player.

  17. #312
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,914

    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
    I agree that Lance could look great in whatever position he's in, while Danny only looks good with the starters. But in that scenario, it could still be true that the team is better overall with Lance starting even if Danny himself looks best with the starters. What is Granger at his current best going to look like? Granger might play his best with the starters, but that still doesn't mean that he'll be anywhere near as good as Lance. At this point, he needs to be pretty damn good to justify starting him over Born Ready, who is playing phenomenal ball right now.

    As has been the case for the last year, when Granger actually proves that he can consistently do big things for this team, then we'll figure out what role is best for him. I just hope that we see Granger play some consistent minutes sooner rather than later so that these issues can have some resolution. These debates are tough because everything surrounding Granger is in theory. Some think that he can be close to what he was two years ago while others think that he'll be a shell of himself, but no one knows for sure since the guy hasn't played consistent ball in ages. It really clouds the debate and everyone is on different levels since there is nothing concrete to work with.

    People's opinions vary a lot when you're judging a game that you can see with your own eyes, so it's infinitely muddier when everyone's playing a guessing game about a guy that hasn't played consistent ball in a very long time.
    Look, is absolutely true that any discussion surrounding Danny is a theoritical one at this point. I agree that we will need to see him play first before we draw any kind of conclusions.

    But allow me to answer in your first paragraph. Let's use the following hypothesis:

    We rank how a player plays from 1 to 10 (with 1 being awful and 10 being awesome) and these are the results:

    Lance is producing a 8 with the starters and a 10 with the bench.

    Granger is producing a 8 with the starters and a 6 with the bench.

    What would you do in that case?

    That's the point I'm trying to make. I just think that Lance will be so much better when he has the full control of our offense as a 6th man that it's the best for the team to use him in that capacity.

    Of course, Lance has been amazing in these first 3 games. If he keeps playing like that then I want him out there in every opportunity.
    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. #313
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,914

    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
    You are acting like Lance can't pass the ball like Danny, actually the reason I don't want Danny in the starting unit is because there is only one ball and we all know how he likes to deflate it and how he likes to jackup shots, Lance is more of a team player.
    Everyone in this forum knows that the reason that you don't want Danny in the starting unit has nothing to do with basketball.
    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

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


  20. #314
    Member Eleazar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,418

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    I the question about who guards Lebron. That really depends on DWade's health, and athletic ability. As well you have to consider it isn't like Paul did an amazing job on Lebron last year either. At one point Lebron was just having his way with Paul in the post that Vogel put Lance on Lebron. Also, Lebron actually put up basically identical numbers in this last playoff series against Paul as he put up against Granger the prior season, his numbers were actually slightly better this past season. I personally believe Hibbert is more important to guarding Lebron than George vs Granger vs Stephenson. Really for me it comes down to post defense with Lebron, and the winner there is Granger. Wade though could be a bigger problem if his health permits. He would have no problem beating Granger, Lance would be better, but Paul has already proven he can contain or even dominate Wade defensively. No matter what the ideal match-up is in this situation the key is always Hibbert and only Hibbert.

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


  22. #315
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,914

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Future View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    All I know is regardless who starts, we will be a better team because in the end, you are adding a former all star.

    The addition of Granger (if right) is no joke. We are going to be so much better if Granger develops chemistry with the team.
    I wish that this was the only thing that I have posted in this thread.
    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. The Following User Says Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  24. #316
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    42
    Posts
    25,237

    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
    You are acting like Lance can't pass the ball like Danny, actually the reason I don't want Danny in the starting unit is because there is only one ball and we all know how he likes to deflate it and how he likes to jackup shots, Lance is more of a team player.
    Given the number of ball handlers in the starting lineup, wouldn't it make more sense for a creator and ball handler like Lance to play as much with the Starters as much with the bench?
    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.

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to CableKC For This Useful Post:


  26. #317
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,914

    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
    Lance is shooting pretty well people. He is also quite capable of dishing to Paul, Hibbert and West. Why not get ALL the players involved instead of just rely on Granger's perimeter shot. Danny isn't going to facilitate a darn thing. Paul would turn it over if he tried. George Hill protects the ball but is not strong at passing the ball. The bottom line is that I recognize Granger will help spread the floor and hit threes but I think Lance can do some of that and a lot more other things to help when we are competing against the other team's very best players.
    We don't need the 3 point shot for our perimeter players. We need the 3 point shot in order to establish space in the post for our two bigs and punish any double teams.
    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. #318
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,914

    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
    Exactly. I just don't like the idea that a team that went to Game 7 of the ECF's last year and is off to a hot start this year needs to rearrange a key part of its lineup just so they can make things easier for a guy who hasn't played consistent ball since May 2012.

    Granger needs to adapt to the current Pacers team, not the other way around.
    Honestly, screw "that guy". I just want a 40% 3 point shooter in the starting line-up for our bigs. Can I have that? If I can then I don't give a **** if he's called Granger, Stephenson or Harry the Martian.
    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. #319
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,914

    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
    Not at the moment and I think people need to start adjusting expectations. Part of the issue here is that some of us don't believe he's coming back 100%. Most players who take a year off don't come back 100% and many are rusty the entire year. This is not the whole story on this issue, but it's part of it. Danny isn't going to be the same player again and people need to come to terms with that.
    David West wasn't 100% in his first year here but he was still a pretty darn good player, wouldn't you agree? I'd also say that 10-11 David West (pre-injury) is almost the same with 12-13 David West.
    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. #320
    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
    Given the number of ball handlers in the starting lineup, wouldn't it make more sense for a creator and ball handler like Lance to play as much with the Starters as much with the bench?
    We don't have a number of ball handlers in the starting lineup I don't know were are you getting that from, Hill is average and neither West/Roy are ball handlers, in reality Paul George is the only one that does a decent job at handling the ball but as we know he turns the ball over a lot, so at the end of the day you still need Lance in the starting unit.

    By the way I thought we knew this 2 years ago when everybody kept saying that we needed a ball handler, some people even wanted Suckleavy back because of this.

  30. #321
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,914

    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
    The report is that Houston is looking to drop Lin to whoever wants him he is not that good reason why he doesn't start and any smart coach would start current Lance with Harden those 2 together could give teams a lot of trouble.
    Here is the link to ClutchFans -> http://bbs.clutchfans.net/forumdisplay.php?f=9

    If there were any reports about what you're saying then they would be reported there. As you can see nothing is reported. So, I call BS on your "reports".
    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

  31. #322
    Member Eleazar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,418

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    For me it isn't about the starting line-up. The starters + Lance or the starters + Danny either way we have a top 3 starting line-up in the league. For me it is about Watson, Orlando, and Ian. I have a question I want people to answer. Will their skills be taken advantage of best with Danny or Lance?

  32. The Following User Says Thank You to Eleazar For This Useful Post:


  33. #323
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,568

    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
    Look, is absolutely true that any discussion surrounding Danny is a theoritical one at this point. I agree that we will need to see him play first before we draw any kind of conclusions.

    But allow me to answer in your first paragraph. Let's use the following hypothesis:

    We rank how a player plays from 1 to 10 (with 1 being awful and 10 being awesome) and these are the results:

    Lance is producing a 8 with the starters and a 10 with the bench.

    Granger is producing a 8 with the starters and a 6 with the bench.

    What would you do in that case?

    That's the point I'm trying to make. I just think that Lance will be so much better when he has the full control of our offense as a 6th man that it's the best for the team to use him in that capacity.

    Of course, Lance has been amazing in these first 3 games. If he keeps playing like that then I want him out there in every opportunity.
    I generally get what you're saying. But playoff games tend to be won by the starters. Now you certainly need a better bench than the one the Pacers trotted out last year, but in general starters decide playoff games. That's why we went as far as we did last year. So you also have to put a value on being a starter versus being a bench player. If the starting lineup is better with one player than the other, then it should be weighed more heavily.

    But yeah, we both agree that this is an extremely theoretical conversation.

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to Sollozzo For This Useful Post:


  35. #324
    Member ilive4sports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    6,876

    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
    You are acting like Lance can't pass the ball like Danny, actually the reason I don't want Danny in the starting unit is because there is only one ball and we all know how he likes to deflate it and how he likes to jackup shots, Lance is more of a team player.
    And this is why it is impossible to have a real discussion. "Danny can't pass the ball" Thats not true. Anyone who has a clue about basketball knows thats not true. He's not playing in JOB's offense. He's playing in Vogel's offense. Danny has no problem passing the ball, never has. As soon as Vogel took over his FGA's went down. And that was before the break out of PG. Its not even about Danny changing his game. He gets to play off the ball, not be the primary focus of the defense, and is playing with all star level players, not Troy Murphy. These guys make Danny's game easier.

  36. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ilive4sports For This Useful Post:


  37. #325
    Member ilive4sports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    6,876

    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
    We don't have a number of ball handlers in the starting lineup I don't know were are you getting that from, Hill is average and neither West/Roy are ball handlers, in reality Paul George is the only one that does a decent job at handling the ball but as we know he turns the ball over a lot, so at the end of the day you still need Lance in the starting unit.

    By the way I thought we knew this 2 years ago when everybody kept saying that we needed a ball handler, some people even wanted Suckleavy back because of this.
    George Hill can handle the ball just fine. Between Hill and PG, the starting unit is more than ok. Quite frankly I don't want anyone else really handling the ball when Hill and George are on the court together. There is no need.

    2 years ago PG couldn't dribble. Dont even make the comparison.

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to ilive4sports 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
  •