Page 16 of 36 FirstFirst ... 612131415161718192026 ... LastLast
Results 376 to 400 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #376
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    4,002

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Lance made jumpers last night, which was great, but he also made a lot of stupid passes. Don't get me wrong, I'm elated to have Lance, but he's quickly getting overrated on PD.
    I think we passed that point early last year.

  2. #377

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 3rdStrike View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    A lot? I saw two. Which is less than the number of "stupid" shots that West took, less than the number of "stupid" fouls West gave, and "a lot" less than the number of "stupid" shots that Orlando Johnson (who is quickly getting overrated on PD) took.

    Funny how he's "quickly getting overrated" by a board that largely dismissed anything positive he did as a flash in the pan by a player who wasn't worth a single kind word or bit of credit. It's like the crow did nothing to the appetite. Just enjoy his early contributions; Vogel certainly does, as he called him the Pacers' "most efficient offensive player this year."

    Last I checked passing is part of offense, but I'm sure your unbiased opinion is more knowledgeable than the coach's.
    Right. I'M the biased one.

  3. #378
    Member Sparhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Age
    34
    Posts
    5,379

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

    I think we'll be able to keep Lance. Once West and Hibbert get going offensively, Lance will score less.
    Lance + Starting SG = Awesome

    Now really free Lance!

  4. #379

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Seriously, stop making **** up. None of that is true. You could say George has changed, but reality is he is just a better version of what he was. Hibbert isn't a different player, he is just a better version of what he was. Those 4 starters are not different players, they are just this years version of the same player. Some of them might be better, but that just means there is less of a reliance on Granger. The style they play hasn't changed all that much, just a different shot distribution, and the style matches Granger's game very well as it should considering he was the main cog in its first iteration. Sure things have changed, but we aren't talking about significant changes. We are talking about adjustments that should be simple for a player with the skillset of Granger to adjust to.
    Making **** up? Seriously? You don't think PG is a completely different player than he was in 2011? I honestly don't know what to say to that. Same with Roy. DG hasn't played in a year and has knee issues, yet you think he'll be the same player? Who's making **** up? Not to mention, even if he is the same player physically and skill wise he would need a significant change in mentality to fit in with that group now. Unless you want him taking the most shots on the team. You can pretend none of that matters all you want, but anyone that's played competitive sports knows that those dynamics matter. It's the same questions Miami had about enough balls to go around. And they've struggled with it at points. But Im sure Indy won't have any issues because ........ well, I guess because you say so.

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


  6. #380
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    4,002

    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
    That's not at all true. The reality is one person does not like Granger. The rest of us either want Granger or Lance to play more minutes with the starters...whether that means start and/or finish. Honestly, this is going to be a moot point. Granger isn't going to be 100% this year and if he shows he can play pretty well, he's going to find himself traded unless he will accept a big pay cut. So, best case for him...he is out of Indy. Worst case he is out of the league. Lance is a young player who will play with Paul for another decade well after Granger hangs it up.

    Sorry, but these are the facts.
    Sorry but these aren't facts. You have no way of knowing that Granger won't ever be 100% again just like I don't know that he will. Based off his progression in the preseason prior to the calf strain, I think he was heading there but who knows. IMO there is almost no chance that he's traded this year. We're all in for a title run so if he's healthy we need him and we can't afford to take back any salary anyway so this debate over Danny and Lance will eventually be resolved on the court because they're both going to be Pacers for the entire year. Right now with Granger out and Lance playing so well it's easy to side with Lance. The truth is that we're still only talking about 3 games which I think is Lances longest run of consistent good games ever. If this is his average play 20 games in then I'll trust that it's for real just like I'll trust that Grangers return is for real when he shows us 20 solid games. Know one knows anything yet but it's going to be interesting and the forum is only going to get more polarized once Granger returns to form.

  7. #381
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,789

    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
    These long discussions are never really very profitable unless we zero in on the real question: who finishes?

    If you think Lance should finish, if would help if you added that to your comments. Then your arguments will be received better from the pro-Lance crowd. Otherwise, all these "Granger should start" arguments feel like a Trojan Horse.
    At this point, I want Lance to finish the game.

    I agree with the notion that "Who Starts" doesn't matter ( since that Player will get his 28-30 mpg ).....it's "Who finishes" that matter.

    However that doesn't change my opinion that I want Lance to come off the bench and play the majority of the 28-30 mpg that he is alotted to play with the 2nd Unit.

    Did Manu come off the bench and then close games for the Spurs?

    If that translates into Lance not Starting and playing 18 of his 28-30 mpg with the 2nd unit ( thus putting the ball in his hands for the majority of the time when he's coming off the bench ) and then only about 10-12 mpg with the Starters......then that is the role I want him to play on this Team.
    Last edited by CableKC; 11-03-2013 at 10:23 AM.
    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.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CableKC For This Useful Post:


  9. #382

    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
    At this point, I want Lance to finish the game.

    I agree with the notion that "Who Starts" doesn't matter ( since that Player will get his 28-30 mpg ).....it's "Who finishes" that matter.

    However that doesn't change my opinion that I want Lance to come off the bench and play the majority of the 28-30 mpg that he is alotted to play with the 2nd Unit.

    Did Manu come off the bench and then close games for the Spurs?

    If that translates into Lance not Starting and playing 18 of his 28-30 mpg with the 2nd unit ( thus putting the ball in his hands for the majority of the time when he's coming off the bench ) and then only about 10-12 mpg with the Starters......then that is the role I want him to play on this Team.
    we all want em both to get big minutes.

    /close thread

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Heisenberg For This Useful Post:


  11. #383
    @jwy49 Steagles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    The 502 and 317
    Age
    18
    Posts
    3,276
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    I have said all along I see Lance starting as a point guard one day. Another thing I'm very adamant about was what I said about Hill's contract- that it was grossly overpaid. IF Lance continues this production, I think it would be in the Pacers best interest to trade Hill, resign Lance, and start him at point. I don't know how the player movement would work, but I like Lance much better at point for the Pacers, and that's not even taking into account the ridiculous contract Hill got.
    "What you do is so loud, I can't hear what you say" -Andrew Luck
    "If you turn the other cheek, I'm gonna hit you in the other cheek, too" -Charles Barkley
    Freshman at the University of Louisville
    Greenfield-Central High School Alum '14
    Follow me on Twitter @jwy49
    1000th post - 4/16/12 2000th post - 6/24/12 3000th post - 3/8/13

  12. #384

    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
    At this point, I want Lance to finish the game.

    I agree that who "Starts and who finishes" doesn't matter...as long as the Player gets 28-30 mpg.

    However that doesn't change my opinion that I want Lance to come off the bench and play the majority of the 28-30 mpg that he is alotted to play with the 2nd Unit.

    Did Manu come off the bench and then close games for the Spurs?

    Cuz that is the role I want him to play on this Team.
    How many more minutes is lance going to get with the second unit? With the minutes Lance and PG play, is there any reason for one of Lance or PG to not be on the floor at all times?

    IMO, the difference between the Pacers and the Ginobli / SA comparison is Tony Parker. If the Pacers had a pg (ball handler and distibutor) of his caliber there would be a lot less need for Lance with the starters. GH is a good player, but he's not that level of pg. PG is improving, but he has not shown to be there yet - he's averaging 4.3 assists, but 3.3 turnovers per game. Lance is 4.0 / 1.7. And 8 of his 12 assists have been to someone in the starting lineup - so he's not "doing all his damage" with the second unit. Or at least not exclusivly him and 4 reserves as people want to make it seem. Of course there is often a mix of starters and reserves on the floor together. All the more reason its unnecessary to remove a ball handler from the starters to supplement the 2nd unit. GH is averaging a whopping 2.0 / 2.0 as the starting pg. These are a small sample size, but they mostly line up with our knowledge of those players skill sets.


    PG and Lance play enough minutes that one should always be on the floor. You don't need to disrupt the starting lineup to make that happen. IMO, the important thing is to have our most complete lineup on the floor as much as possible against the other teams starters come playoff time. A starting lineup featuring DG, PG, and GH is vulnerable to pressure D that sometimes creates turnovers but very often eliminates time to run their offensive sets and causes more rushed shots. It also gets less easy baskets, because GH doesn't push the ball and PG is still not great at it.
    Last edited by rm1369; 11-03-2013 at 10:51 AM.

  13. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to rm1369 For This Useful Post:


  14. #385
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,789

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    we all want em both to get big minutes.

    /close thread
    re-open thread/

    I agree on the notion that both get big minutes....but what McKeyFan is saying is that there is a difference between both getting minutes and who finishes ( cuz there can only be 5 Players on the floor at the end of the game, right ). What I am adding to that is that when it comes to who Lance plays with........specifically if he "Starts" and plays the majority of his minutes with the Starters ( and therefore take the ball out of his hands ) as opposed to "Being the 6th Man" ( and therefore putting the ball in his hands more frequently ) matters, because that will determine who he plays with on the floor.
    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.

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


  16. #386

    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
    re-open thread/

    I agree on the notion that both get big minutes....but what McKeyFan is saying is that there is a difference between both getting minutes and who finishes ( cuz there can only be 5 Players on the floor at the end of the game, right ). What I am adding to that is that when it comes to who Lance plays with........specifically if he "Starts" and plays the majority of his minutes with the Starters ( and therefore take the ball out of his hands ) as opposed to "Being the 6th Man" ( and therefore putting the ball in his hands more frequently ) matters, because that will determine who he plays with on the floor.
    Doesn't it also then mean it shifts who he is on the floor against? That's my issue. IMO we have a very complete, well rounded starting lineup that is capable of hurting teams in multiple ways. Once you move DG in place of Lance you MAY still have a pretty good lineup, but I don't see how anybody can honestly argue its is better. Especially considering our starting pg is really a 2 and DG adds nothing as a ball handler. Once substitutions start you can manipulate lineups fairly easily to keep balance, but by definition you are playing a significant amount of time (a min of 7 mins each in the 1st & 3rd qtrs?) against the other teams best lineup without our best lineup. That doesn't make sense to me. I understand the SA argument, but they had an elite level pg and didn't need Ginoblis ball handling. Ginobli was a sneaky player but certainly not a great defender and my memory is they often started a better defender in his place. I'd argue the Pacers also drop off defensively with the suggested change - especially against Miami where you ask Granger to guard Wade (bad idea) or guard Lebron instead of PG (bad idea).
    Last edited by rm1369; 11-03-2013 at 11:16 AM.

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


  18. #387
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,789

    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
    How many more minutes is lance going to get with the second unit? With the minutes Lance and PG play, is there any reason for one of Lance or PG to not be on the floor at all times?
    How many minutes ( on average ) is a 3-man combination of CJ, Scola, Mahinmi and OJ/Solo/Copeland ( whoever the 10th Wing ) is going get to play together?

    Are we talking about 16 to 18 mpg where we will see at least 2 to 3 of those Players on the floor together? If so....that is how many minutes that I want to see Lance on the floor with them.

    There is a valid argument when Lance is on the floor with GH/PG/West/Hibbert that the ball should not be in his hands for the majority of the time when all 5 of them are in the lineup. But it makes sense that when Lance is on the floor with some 3-man combination of CJ/Scola/Mahinmi and OJ/Solo/Copeland that Lance should have the ball in his hands.

    Quote Originally Posted by rm1369 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    IMO, the difference between the Pacers and the Ginobli / SA comparison is Tony Parker. If the Pacers had a pg ( ball handler and distibutor) of his caliber there would be a lot less need for Lance with the starters. GH is a good player, but he's not that level of pg. PG is improving, but he has not shown to be there yet - he's averaging 4.3 assists, but 3.3 turnovers per game. Lance is 4.0 / 1.7. And 8 of his 12 assists have been to someone in the starting lineup - so he's not "doing all his damage" with the second unit. Or at least not exclusivly him and 4 reserves as people want to make it seem. Of course there is often a mix of starters and reserves on the floor together. All the more reason its unnecessary to remove a ball handler from the starters to supplement the 2nd unit. GH is averaging a whopping 2.0 / 2.0 as the starting pg. These are a small sample size, but they mostly line up with our knowledge of those players skill sets.
    When it comes to the Starting Lineup since any one of them ( GH/PG/West/Hibbert/Lance ) can and are capable of initiating the offense and promote the ball movement, I don't rely on the "assists per game" stat as much when it comes to the Pacers and the way that Vogel runs this offense. Vogel doesn't depend on a ball-dominant Point Guard that runs and dominates the offensive flow of the Team like DWill, John Wall or CP3 does.....so GH averaging 2 to 4 Assists per game doesn't change my opinion of whether GH or Lance should be the dominant "ball-handler".

    Also...to clarify my earlier post in regards to comparing Lance to Manu....I'm referring to the role that Manu had on the Spurs...not as much the makeup of the Team. I know that GH doesn't compare to Parker or is on the same level as him Manu was the 6th Man on the Team, he played Starter Minutes and closed the games for Pops. That is the role that I want Lance to follow. It doesn't mean that Granger is the better player than Lance is just because Granger would be Starting and playing more minutes with the Starters.....it just means that I want to better utilize Lance's skillset and his ability to help the 2nd unit more than Granger would. At this point, I look at Granger purely as a scorer and/or ( at worst ) a spot up shooter that waits for the rest of the Starting lineup to create a shot for him. Granger doesn't have the ability to make the 2nd Unit more effective compared to Lance due to Lance's ability to create for others.

    Quote Originally Posted by rm1369 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    PG and Lance play enough minutes that one should always be on the floor. You don't need to disrupt the starting lineup to make that happen. IMO, the important thing is to have our most complete lineup on the floor as much as possible against the other teams starters come playoff time. A starting lineup featuring DG, PG, and GH is vulnerable to pressure D that sometimes creates turnovers but very often eliminates time to run their offensive sets and causes more rushed shots. It also gets less easy baskets, because GH doesn't push the ball and PG is still not a great at it.
    IMHO......Lance should play the majority of the time with the Players that he has the most opportunities to create offense for that can't create offense on their own, which is some 3-man combination of Scola, Mahinmi, Solo, Copeland, ( to a lesser extent ) CJ and OJ. However, that doesn't exclude Lance from closing a game with GH/PG/West/Hibbert and/or playing up to 10-14 mpg with that lineup.

    I know that it's just a matter of opinion....but I look at it as a way of spreading out the talent/skillset among the different lineups. I agree that the most effective lineup is GH/Lance/PG/West/Hibbert and that they should close games....but I also think that Lance isn't effectively being used when he's playing with the Starting lineup since he won't have the ball in his hands the majority of the time when he's on the floor with them. Having Lance play more minutes with a lineup where where he can have the ball in his hands more frequently to create for others makes as much ( if not more ) sense. I guess it's just a way of making the entire lineup more effectively run. When Lance is on the floor with the majority of the 2nd unit...I'm not as concerned about losing any leads because I know that there is someone that can create offense and scoring opportunities for them.
    Last edited by CableKC; 11-03-2013 at 01:20 PM.
    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.

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


  20. #388

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

    CableKC - I take it you are not of the opinion that GH struggled in the playoffs advancing the ball against Miami's pressure D? If that's the case, then I disagree, but at least understand your view on Lance. I happen to think it was a huge issue at times and that's why I believe Lance should be out there with the starters. I agree they are less dependent on individual shot creation, but that type of offense typically requires time to operate and I feel they were often robbed of that time by GHs "struggles" with advancing the ball.

    Now to be clear, I'm not suggesting the ball was taken from him a lot (although it was on occasion) I'm suggesting that he has to work harder than most PGs to advance the ball because he doesn't have that "ball on a string" type handle that allows him to disregard the pressure. He has to be very deliberate and that takes time. Or you give him help and without Lance that help comes from PG. I love PG and he's improving, but I don't want him asked to consistently bring the ball up against Lebron in the playoffs.

    I honestly don't see the dynamic being much different than the Lebron / Wade one (obviously lance isn't that of player yet). Both players are capable of initiating the offense and you rarely see the team not have one of them on the floor at all times. The offense can then be initiated by either of them or the "pg" that is in with them. No need to disrupt the starters to have a creator on the floor with the bench. Especially when the rotation tightens come playoff time.

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


  22. #389
    Member Pacergeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    3,512

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    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!!!
    David "And One" West

  23. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Pacergeek For This Useful Post:


  24. #390
    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 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!!!
    Specially if you are thinking about starting a guy who's fans keep making excuses that "he always starts slow" shooting about .300 for months while jacking up as many shots he can in the process.

    Note that I'm not even talking about his D that we all know is not that great even when he was healthy (he is not healthy).

  25. #391
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,134

    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 is right, things have changed a lot since DG played in 2011-12. In 11-12, Paul was fourth in FG attempts (Granger, West, Hibbert) with 639 attempts. Granger shot the ball 941 times, which was 302 more times than PG. West was second in FG attempts with 716, so Granger shot the ball 225 more times than the next highest player.

    Now Paul is leading the team in FG attempts and has morphed into one of the best players in the NBA. Lance is also getting a ton of attempts. We don't need Granger to shoot the ball at a ratio that is drastically higher than the next highest player. That's just not who we are anymore. Granger is facing a significant change when he returns.

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/IND/2012.html
    Change in shot distribution is not a change in style.

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


  27. #392
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    5,428

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    At this point anyone in the "DG should start" camp can't have much of a point because Lance has been knocking down open shots at a blistering clip through three games. Obviously he won't shoot this hot all year, but if he's playing close to this level throughout the yr, then it would be hard to have DG come in and take his spot with the starters. Obviously a healthy Granger is a great scoring weapon, but it's gotta be about the team.

    Now I'm not jumping on the Lance is an all star bandwagon by any means. I still think he's wildly overrated by a few on here. And I want to see him do well against good teams and not the three decent teams who continue to leave him wide open for 3's all game.

    But he is doing very well and if the team has one of the best records in the league by the time DG comes back, it may truly be best to have Danny play with the bench and go from there. I still believe a healthy Granger is the best scorer on the team, but he has to prove to be healthy before anything.

    Edit: I still believe Lance could be a distributor in the second unit still, but I think he can still do that by being the first sub out (for Danny) and coming back in during the 2nd qt playing WITH Danny.

    Right now the starter I'm worried about is D.West. Dude looks old and out of it out there.
    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 11-03-2013 at 01:15 PM.

  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ace E.Anderson For This Useful Post:


  29. #393
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,789

    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
    CableKC - I take it you are not of the opinion that GH struggled in the playoffs advancing the ball against Miami's pressure D? If that's the case, then I disagree, but at least understand your view on Lance. I happen to think it was a huge issue at times and that's why I believe Lance should be out there with the starters. I agree they are less dependent on individual shot creation, but that type of offense typically requires time to operate and I feel they were often robbed of that time by GHs "struggles" with advancing the ball.

    Now to be clear, I'm not suggesting the ball was taken from him a lot (although it was on occasion) I'm suggesting that he has to work harder than most PGs to advance the ball because he doesn't have that "ball on a string" type handle that allows him to disregard the pressure. He has to be very deliberate and that takes time. Or you give him help and without Lance that help comes from PG. I love PG and he's improving, but I don't want him asked to consistently bring the ball up against Lebron in the playoffs.

    I honestly don't see the dynamic being much different than the Lebron / Wade one (obviously lance isn't that of player yet). Both players are capable of initiating the offense and you rarely see the team not have one of them on the floor at all times. The offense can then be initiated by either of them or the "pg" that is in with them. No need to disrupt the starters to have a creator on the floor with the bench. Especially when the rotation tightens come playoff time.
    I'm not "basketball saavy" enough to know how well GH handled the ball pressure against Miami ( or any elite level Team ) compared to Lance or PG24.....so I can't really answer that. Are we talking about "night and day" when it comes to GH bringing up the ball compared to when Lance or PG bringing up the ball?

    From the sounds of what you are saying....he didn't handle it too well...but I'm guessing that GH bringing up the ball under pressure isn't as bad as Cabbages bring up the ball where it justified taking the ball completely out of GHs hands when bringing the ball up.

    But one of the growing discussions that we are having now ( outside of the whole "Lance Vs. Granger" argument ) is the "Lance Vs. GH" discussion that has emerged.

    Overall, I have ZERO problems with Starting and Closing games with GH and leaving things the way they are when it comes GH. He completely fits the way that Vogel runs the offense and who Bird wants on the floor to close games ( Veteran experience, defense and a cold-blooded killer mentality that has "ice" in his veins ).

    The question(s)....as many have pointed out...boils down to:

    1 ) Should Lance or Granger Start?
    2 ) Should Lance or Granger Finish?
    3 ) Should Lance or Granger play the majority of their minutes with the Starters or 2nd Unit?

    In regards to Question 1, I could care less who Starts since both will get Starter Minutes even if one comes off the bench ( assuming, of course that Granger is healthy ). But if having Lance play the majority of his minutes with the 2nd Unit translates into him not Starting ( but still getting Starter minutes AND finishing games ), then I am okay with that.

    In regards to Question 2, I am comfortable with saying that Lance should Finish the game.

    In regards to Question 3, for the various reasons I mentioned before....I think that Lance should play the majority of his minutes ( maybe a 18 / 12 split ) with the 2nd Unit ( since this allows Vogel to put the ball in Lance's hands more often ) while closing out the game with Starters.
    Last edited by CableKC; 11-03-2013 at 01:29 PM.
    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.

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CableKC For This Useful Post:


  31. #394
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,789

    Sports Logo

    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!!!
    Lance may be the better Player now and will likely improve this year compared to last....but when did Lance become and ALL-STAR?

    Also....I don't think that anyone is suggesting that Lance gets his minutes cut at the expense of Granger getting more minutes....any minutes that Granger gets ( when he returns ) would be at the expense of every Player behind PG/Lance/GH/West/Hibbert.
    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.

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


  33. #395

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

    Granger and Lance style differ significantly. Granger coming off the Bench would suffer significantly. Where as alot of Lances great moments have come when he is playing with the Bench unit already this year. I believe his amazing 4th quarter last night was with the Bench unit.

    Lance is star type player. Let him play with the bench unit and be the go to guy. Let Granger play with the Starters and compliment Georges go to status.

  34. #396
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

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

    That's probably the one big reason that comes to mind why I might still prefer Danny starting over Lance, even if Lance is shooting this well: Both would fit well with the other starters, but I think Lance helps the bench crew more than Danny could.

    To those talking like Lance is now an all-star, maybe wait and see longer than three games?

  35. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  36. #397
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,789

    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
    That's probably the one big reason that comes to mind why I might still prefer Danny starting over Lance, even if Lance is shooting this well: Both would fit well with the other starters, but I think Lance helps the bench crew more than Danny could.

    To those talking like Lance is now an all-star, maybe wait and see longer than three games?
    People simply equate "Starting" with "Whose the better player".

    That is why I answer the question of "Who should Start?" with "I could care less as long as both get Starter-like minutes and Lance finishes the game".

    Overall, in a vacuum....meaning that we are to ignore injury history and simply compare what the Player bring to the floor.....I'd say that both Lance and Granger are on the same level that brings a different skillset to the table with Lance having an "upward trajectory" whereas Granger is heading in an "downward trajectory". But because we can't ignore factors like injury history and lack of regular season Playing time into a Player like Granger....it's safe to say that Lance is considered the better Player now and for the immediate future.

    When we discuss whether Lance or Granger should "start" with GH/PG/West/Hibbert ( all Players that are excellent at really good ball movement, oncourt awareness and finding cutters to the basket ), I agree with what you are saying, Lance maybe a better influence ( and overall a better option ) to play more minutes with the 2nd unit. Given the way that this Team is run and the importance of running an efficient AND effective 2nd unit ( this isn't critical but important IMHO ); Lance maybe the better Player than Granger, but the 2nd Unit may better benefit ( and therefore the overall Team as a whole ) with Lance in their lineup than with Granger.

    All of you focus in on the "Who should Start and therefore that translates into whose the better Player" discussion, when ( in the end )....the real question is "What is the 5 Players you want on the floor when it comes down to crunch time?" is all that really matters. The only times that I may want Granger to finish/close out a game is if we need Foul shooters on the floor ( Lance is a terrible FT shooter at times....which I assume that he can work on next summer ) or if Granger is simply on fire. But for the rest of the 98% of the time.....I want Lance ( not Granger ) to finish the game with PG/GH/West/Hibbert.
    Last edited by CableKC; 11-03-2013 at 02:34 PM.
    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.

  37. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CableKC For This Useful Post:


  38. #398

    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

    To those talking like Lance is now an all-star, maybe wait and see longer than three games?
    Fair statement. Although I'd say its also fair to say those that believe DG will pickup where he left off in 2011 - 2012 should wait until he can get and stay on the court before wanting to bench someone that's doing it now. JMO of course.

  39. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rm1369 For This Useful Post:


  40. #399
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    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
    Fair statement. Although I'd say its also fair to say those that believe DG will pickup where he left off in 2011 - 2012 should wait until he can get and stay on the court before wanting to bench someone that's doing it now. JMO of course.
    I figured this was coming, and my response is, "I already was."

  41. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  42. #400
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,789

    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
    I figured this was coming, and my response is, "I already was."
    Same here...although I wish that Granger could come anywhere close to how he was prior to his year off....I'm realistic enough to believe that he can ( at best ) he can simply contribute like any other 6th Man can contribute.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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