Page 18 of 36 FirstFirst ... 814151617181920212228 ... LastLast
Results 426 to 450 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #426
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,191

    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!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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).
    Right. Nothing to do with disliking a certain player
    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

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


  3. #427
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,191

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.
    Agreed. That's why I'm happy with how things are at the moment. Lance has been great for us in both capacities.
    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

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


  5. #428

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

    Here is my suggested mins breakdown:

    GH - 32
    LS - 35
    PG - 35
    DW - 28
    RH - 28

    CW - 16
    DG - 30
    Scola - 16
    IM - 20

    If there is anyone who's minutes you watch during the regular season its DW - lower him to 28. DG and Scola should be able to pickup the extra minutes. The starters get roughly the first and last 7 mins of each half together (28 mins). One of PG and Lance are always on the court. The primary bench unit is Watson / either PG or Lance / DG / Scola / Mahinmi. They get roughly 16 mins together, with the remaining mins being some combination of players - I hate wholesale substitutions.

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


  7. #429
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,191

    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
    Handling the ball is important, but it's still just one aspect of the game. Who shoots is still pretty important. Never again will Danny get 200 more shot attempts than the next highest player like he did in 2011-12. Never again will he shoot the ball 300 more times than PG. My point was that Danny's role with the team will be very different than it was in 11-12 when he last played.
    Creating the play is more important than who is shooting the ball. I don't care about who is shooting the ball as much as I care about who is creating that shot.
    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. #430

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

    Big issue with playing any player similar to Lance at the point, is you take away from some of their greatest strengths. Lance getting time at point takes away from his ability to slash or attack the offensive glass, as one of a point guards primary responsibilities is transition defense. Lance is right where he needs to be as our starting shooting guard.

  9. #431
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,191

    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
    The shots were brought up as an indication that you can't just look at the 2011 lineup and say everything will operate the same. It won't and shouldn't. It's especially a consideration for DG because he became a volume shooter. Any suggestion that that isn't a concern for his reintegration into the starting lineup is naive, IMO. Players mentality is hugely effected by touches etc. That's a big part of chemistry. I'm on record as saying I have concerns about Lances reverting back to a ball dominate guard if that is what he is asked to do for the team. Some have agreed with that concern - and I believe you did as well. The mentality to shoot isn't much different, IMO.

    Are you suggesting you wouldn't have a concern if the Pacers lost a couple games where Lance or GH lead the team in shot attempts instead of PG?
    I think that you got the whole "same" argument a bit wrong. I don't think that aamcguy was saying that everything will operate the same. He said something very, very simple. The line-up still consists of the same players as it did in 2011. Paul George, Roy Hibbert, David West and George Hill. Isn't this the truth?

    Yes, Paul George and Roy Hibbert are vastly improved. No, the shot distribution will not be the same. No one argues that the shot distribution should be the same as in 2011.

    Personally, I believe that Danny can be a very good 5th option in the starting line-up due to his perimeter shooting. I don't want him to be 1st in shot attempts but then again I have never cared about who is shooting the ball. If a guy is open I want him to take that shot. It's that simple.

    And to answer your question. If Lance and GH were open then I'd have no problem if they shot more than PG.
    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

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  11. #432
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,191

    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
    What has Hill done to deserve getting booted from the starting lineup?
    That's a very good question. You know, someone could similarly wonder "What has Danny done to deserve getting booted from the starting lineup?" as well.
    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

  12. #433
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,044

    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
    That's a very good question. You know, someone could similarly wonder "What has Danny done to deserve getting booted from the starting lineup?" as well.
    For starters:

    - Hasn't played consistent basketball since May 2012. He couldn't even make it out of pre-season without getting hurt.

    - Team looks better than ever without him and made Game 7 of the ECF's.

    - Has been replaced in the lineup by a budding young talent who is putting up freakishly good numbers through 3 games and seems to fit perfectly with the other four starters.


    It's not what Danny's done, it's what he hasn't done......

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


  14. #434
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,191

    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
    There is absolutely no reason to not have PG or Lance on the floor with the bench. A combination of Watson / Lance or PG/ DG / Scola / Mahimi should be a pretty damn good unit (assuming Granger is good enough to consider starting over Lance) and easily obtainable without moving Lance to the bench. It also: puts what you consider the best lineup on the floor against the other teams best lineup for the first 7-8 mins of the 1st and 3rd quarters and keeps the team from being yoyo'd if Danny has lingering healthy issues. I still don't understand why Lance has to come off the bench to have have an effective bench unit. Lance comes out for a couple mins as you start to bring in the bench, while PG continues to play. You then switch Lance and PG for several minutes until the starters come back in. What am I missing?
    This can happen but it risks having Lance or PG play more than 38 minutes and thus running them into the ground.
    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. #435
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,191

    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
    For starters:

    - Hasn't played consistent basketball since May 2012. He couldn't even make it out of pre-season without getting hurt.

    - Team looks better than ever without him and made Game 7 of the ECF's.

    - Has been replaced in the lineup by a budding young talent who is putting up freakishly good numbers through 3 games and seems to fit perfectly with the other four starters.


    It's not what Danny's done, it's what he hasn't done......
    So, he has been injured. You're saying that he should lose his spot due to injury. Am I right?
    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. #436

    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
    That's a very good question. You know, someone could similarly wonder "What has Danny done to deserve getting booted from the starting lineup?" as well.
    Well, Danny is a poor passer and ball handler, is stationary on the offensive end unless a play is drawn up for him, hinders the development and improvement of George/Stephenson (as proven last year and so far this year), can't consistently hit a jump shot, and struggles to play within the flow of the offense, make wise basketball decisions, or take uncontested shots. Granger's return would ultimately be a positive as he's a quality player, but the Pacers are and will continue to be unquestionably better without him in the starting unit detracting from Paul George, our on and off ball movement, and our interior play.

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to croz24 For This Useful Post:


  18. #437
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,191

    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
    PG and Lance have averaged 35.3 and 36.3 mins per game respectively. PG averaged 37.6 last year - I wouldn't suggest he was "ran into the ground". 36.3 mins per game would have put Lance at 21st in mpg last year. In a group with a lot of good YOUNG players. I don't see that as running him into the ground. How many minutes are you wanting to take away from Lance and PG to keep from "running them into the ground"?
    I don't want to take any minutes away from Lance and PG. I just don't want to see them injured because we're playing them 40 MPG. I don't want us to become like Thibs' Bulls. I don't want PG end up like Deng playing 39 MPG for 3 consecutive years.
    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. #438
    Gotta Play Big BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,424

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

    The more I think about Lance's situation, the more I am thankful that he plays alongside. George Hill. They really do complement each other.

    With that said, I'm fine with Lance as a SG. While I have imagined that he could be an amazing PG, I think with George Hill he has enough opportunities to initiate the offense. Perhaps at one point with more experience he can be a PG, but I don't think now is the time. I'm not even sure if that time will come. I think teams would go small on us and it could end up being detrimental. So...I'm fine with Lance at SG from here on out. On the other hand, maybe we have a great pint sized, dead eye SG who can guard the other team's PG. IDK. Maybe that guy is George Hill...

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


  21. #439
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,044

    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
    So, he has been injured. You're saying that he should lose his spot due to injury. Am I right?
    I'm not saying he should lose his spot solely because he got hurt. It's not like I said, "He should never start again!" when he initially got hurt 12 months ago. But his absence set off a chain of events which included a young Lance Stephenson getting the opportunity to come in and produce. He played very solid last year and appears to be completely busting out right now. I'm not saying that Danny should lose his spot solely because he got hurt. All I'm saying is that his getting hurt led to a situation in which we have a 23 year old who has developed into a better player. But Granger's continued absence does factor in when he still hasn't proven that he can be a reliable player.

    Athletes do lose their spots to injuries sometimes. It sucks, but that's the nature of the beast. The most famous athlete in Indianapolis history, Peyton Manning, lost his job because of a situation that was initiated by his injury that caused him to miss a year. My saying that Danny can lose his spot to injury is hardly going out on a limb.

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


  23. #440
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,191

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by croz24 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well, Danny is a poor passer and ball handler, is stationary on the offensive end unless a play is drawn up for him, hinders the development and improvement of George/Stephenson (as proven last year and so far this year), can't consistently hit a jump shot, and struggles to play within the flow of the offense, make wise basketball decisions, or take uncontested shots. Granger's return would ultimately be a positive as he's a quality player, but the Pacers are and will continue to be unquestionably better without him in the starting unit detracting from Paul George, our on and off ball movement, and our interior play.
    You know that I don't agree with your view on Granger but that's besides the point here. Didn't Danny have those attributes when he was starting in 11-12? What has changed?

    I just want people to admit that Danny's injury is the perfect excuse for what some posters in this forum always wanted. To bench DG.
    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

  24. #441
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,191

    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'm not saying he should lose his spot solely because he got hurt. It's not like I said, "He should never start again!" when he initially got hurt 12 months ago. But his absence set off a chain of events which included a young Lance Stephenson getting the opportunity to come in and produce. He played very solid last year and appears to be completely busting out right now. I'm not saying that Danny should lose his spot solely because he got hurt. All I'm saying is that his getting hurt led to a situation in which we have a 23 year old who has developed into a better player. But Granger's continued absence does factor in when he still hasn't proven that he can be a reliable player.

    Athletes do lose their spots to injuries sometimes. It sucks, but that's the nature of the beast. The most famous athlete in Indianapolis history, Peyton Manning, lost his job because of a situation that was initiated by his injury that caused him to miss a year. My saying that Danny can lose his spot to injury is hardly going out on a limb.
    I just wanted you to confirm that you believe that Danny should lose his spot due to injury. Thank you very much
    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

  25. #442
    Gotta Play Big BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,424

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

    One factor not mentioned here is that Granger wouldn't be scoring nearly as many points as he did when he was "the man". Not only is this team MUCH better, he will never again be the best player on the team. Not with Paul. Hibbert is clearly more valuable.

    The point is, everyone needs to forget about the seasons Granger got his numbers on bad teams. It happens all the time. A player has inflated stats because his team isn't all that good. Granger was a trooper delivering for the Pacers year after year, but that's exactly what happened. His scoring average, on fairly poor FG%, was very much inflated. At best he would average 17PPG on this team.

    Seriously, the team is so much better now. People need to readjust who Danny Granger really is because even if 100% healthy he may very well be the 4th best player on the team.

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


  27. #443
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,044

    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
    I just wanted you to confirm that you believe that Danny should lose his spot due to injury. Thank you very much

    I think he should lose his spot because we have a better player starting right now. The injury is what started the chain of events, though it's certainly still an important factor since the guy isn't playing.

    If Lance wasn't on the roster and Granger was clearly the best option, then it's not like I'd be saying, "well Granger might be healthy now, but he shouldn't start since he got hurt that one time". No, I don't think he should start because we have Lance.

    Also, calling it "Granger's spot" at this point really isn't factual. It's been Lance's spot for a year. Granger has been gone for so long that I think the statute of limitations has run out as far as calling it "his spot" is concerned.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-03-2013 at 07:24 PM.

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


  29. #444
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,191

    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 think he should lose his spot because we have a better player starting right now. The injury is what started the chain of events, though it's certainly still an important factor since the guy isn't playing.

    If Lance wasn't on the roster and Granger was clearly the best option, then it's not like I'd be saying, "well Granger might be healthy now, but he shouldn't start since he got hurt that one time". No, I don't think he should start because we have Lance.

    Also, calling it "Granger's spot" at this point really isn't factual. It's been Lance's spot for a year. Granger has been gone for so long that I think the statute of limitations has run out as far as calling it "his spot" is concerned.
    It was Granger's spot before he got injured and that's why I referred to it that way in my post. I didn't say that it's Granger's spot now.

    We seem to circle back to a previous argument. The argument that "the better player should start". In other words, you're starting that starting does matter. Am I right? Because if yes, then that's where we disagree. Starting is nowhere near as important as finishing is.
    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

  30. #445
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    17,044

    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
    It was Granger's spot before he got injured and that's why I referred to it that way in my post. I didn't say that it's Granger's spot now.

    We seem to circle back to a previous argument. The argument that "the better player should start". In other words, you're starting that starting does matter. Am I right? Because if yes, then that's where we disagree. Starting is nowhere near as important as finishing is.
    I'm saying that there's no reason whatsoever for the Pacers to screw with a starting lineup that has worked brilliantly for the last year and continues to get better and better.

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


  32. #446
    Gotta Play Big BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,424

    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
    Starting is nowhere near as important as finishing is.
    In reality, I think most everyone agrees with this statement. Yet when people talk about a guy starting, I hope you realize that they are also saying that the player should not be a "bench player" and that normally starters will equal finishers. Of course there are exceptions. Most starters also finish...even if not all 5 do it.

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


  34. #447
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

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

    So a player that has been out for almost 2 years shouldn't lose his starting spot lol I can't wait for somebody else to come up with another great excuse

    I'm glad JO is not here anymore or Nuntius would be telling us about how JO should be the starter because he never lost his starting spot lol

  35. #448

    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
    You know that I don't agree with your view on Granger but that's besides the point here. Didn't Danny have those attributes when he was starting in 11-12? What has changed?

    I just want people to admit that Danny's injury is the perfect excuse for what some posters in this forum always wanted. To bench DG.
    Well, if you were on this board at all in 11-12 and prior, you'd know I wanted Granger dealt to maximize on his "perceived" value. At this point, I believe it's actually more beneficial to have Granger and his expiring remain on the team as part of our bench, as oppose to dealing him, unless of course the perfect trade comes along that nets us an elite point guard.
    Last edited by croz24; 11-03-2013 at 07:49 PM.

  36. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to croz24 For This Useful Post:


  37. #449
    Gotta Play Big BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,424

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

    I've agreed with most everything the Pacers have done since the day JOb was booted. I was quite pleased they jettisoned Collison and gave the reigns to George Hill. I was quite happy that Vogel stopped with that 3 pointer game Jim always failed with. When DJ and GG failed, they cleaned that up quickly. They acquired Scola and CJ Watson. They have now given a longer leash to Lance. All of this is good.

    Now I fully expect Granger to either take the back seat and a pay cut...or be gone. Lance Stephenson is the future people. Don't fight it.

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


  39. #450
    Gotta Play Big BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,424

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

    Lance starting to get national press. Here we go:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...acers/3420315/
    Source: USA Today

  40. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BlueNGold 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
  •