Page 3 of 36 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #51
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,492

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo 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
    If he did meet all my if's in the coming months, I really want to see a Lance, Paul, Danny, David, Roy lineup. I think that's as much talent as we're capable of packing into one 5-man unit.

    I'm trying to tread lightly here, but what recent evidence shows that Granger is a better player than George Hill? I can't think of any.

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


  3. #52

    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
    If he did meet all my if's in the coming months, I really want to see a Lance, Paul, Danny, David, Roy lineup. I think that's as much talent as we're capable of packing into one 5-man unit.
    Been my dream lineup since year 1. Love to see if it could work.

  4. #53
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    5,118

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    I thought Lance did his most damage with the starters off the ball in the half court(2 catch & shoot 3's, a back door cut, 2 tip ins) and was aggressive in the open court as well. It wasn't until he was with the bench that he was "initiating" the offense with pick & pops, drive & kicks, etc.

    A big part of last night was that NOBODY on ORL was big enough to guard Lance when he got a head of steam on the break, or within semi break opportunities. This allowed him to just bully his way to the paint a few times. That won't always work, so having a guy like Hill who is a bit more polished and calm within the half court makes these two a good compliment for one another.
    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 10-30-2013 at 06:26 PM.

  5. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ace E.Anderson For This Useful Post:


  6. #54
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    5,118

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm trying to tread lightly here, but what recent evidence shows that Granger is a better player than George Hill? I can't think of any.
    Without turning this into yet another Granger thread, the easy answer is he is a much more dangerous and consistent scorer. The potential for that team offensively is limitless. Not to mention we would easily have the biggest most physical starting lineup in the league--bar none.

    ((This is from a huge Hill advocator))

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ace E.Anderson For This Useful Post:


  8. #55
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,492

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo 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
    I thought Lance did his most damage with the starters off the ball I'm the half court(2 catch & shoot 3's, a back door cut, 2 tip ins) and was aggressive in the open court as well. It wasn't until he was with the bench that he was "initiating" the offense with pick & pops, drive & kicks, etc.

    A big part of last night was that NOBODY on ORL was big enough to guard Lance when he got a head of steam on the break, or within semi break opportunities. This allowed him to just bully his way to the paint a few times. That won't always work, so having a guy like Hill who is a bit more polished and calm within the half court makes these two a good compliment for one another.

    I agree, well said.

    Last night we got a perfect blend of Lance. This doesn't have to be an either/or thing. He can start the game and do the things that help the starting unit succeed, which is catch and shoot, back door cutting, tip ins, open court aggression, and excellent defense, (as you outlined well), as well as increased ball handling as the season goes on. But as we saw last night, there is also PLENTY of opportunity for him to play heavy minutes with the bench unit and initiate the offense. Lance is so talented that he offers great skill sets to both the starting and bench units, and as last night showed, there is plenty of opportunity for him to do both.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-30-2013 at 06:59 PM.

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


  10. #56
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    5,118

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    The one case where I could see someone wanting to move Hill (which I do not) is because of his contract. He may not be overpaid, but due to the price we have to pay to the rest of our roster, Hill could be seen by some as a luxury that we can't afford moving forward.

    Just an idea

  11. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    7,942

    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
    The one case where I could see someone wanting to move Hill (which I do not) is because of his contract. He may not be overpaid, but due to the price we have to pay to the rest of our roster, Hill could be seen by some as a luxury that we can't afford moving forward.

    Just an idea
    Nah, the play we can't afford is Copeland. Having your 11th or 12th man making $3 is never a good thing.

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


  13. #58
    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 Ace E.Anderson View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Without turning this into yet another Granger thread, the easy answer is he is a much more dangerous and consistent scorer. The potential for that team offensively is limitless. Not to mention we would easily have the biggest most physical starting lineup in the league--bar none.

    ((This is from a huge Hill advocator))
    It's another Danny Granger thread the only difference is that this time Hill is the one that has to move to the bench so DG gets to start, I'm really not sure what is the obsession about DG starting.
    Last edited by vnzla81; 10-30-2013 at 06:54 PM.

  14. #59
    Your Daddy RobRoy317's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bloomington, IN
    Age
    21
    Posts
    128

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Ahhh good times people STILL talking about Danny starting over Stephenson. I wonder if when I'm like 95 I will randomly go on here and STILL see people talking about how he should of started over Lance still. #1 defense in the NBA last year...yep, let's just change that by switching Born Ready with Old Man Granger and hope for the best.

    Like, let me pull an Allen Iverson here - we're talking about changing up the number one defense here. We are undergoing a second season without Granger in the lineup, the Pacers got within one game of the Finals, and people actually have the ****ing nerve to say we should just say **** IT LET'S SWITCH UP THE STARTING UNIT. Sorry, as AI says, "Look, it's funny to me too." But we're talking about dissembling a hardcore lineup here man. I mean how silly is that?? We're talking about moving Hill to shooting guard, putting Lance at point, etc. Hey, did you guys know that Vogel is a mother****ing knowledgable coach? I think he knows what the hell he is doing. I mean we were within one game of the finals and we are talking about trading our starting point guard that helped us earn the title of being the #1 defensive team in the NBA.

    This is worse than moving Halloween to November 1st.
    "What you are witnessing right now is the old Danny Granger of old!!" - Chris Denari 01/01/2014

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to RobRoy317 For This Useful Post:


  16. #60

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

    ^^ That's another way to put it.

    I agree.

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


  18. #61
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,511

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RobRoy317 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ahhh good times people STILL talking about Danny starting over Stephenson. I wonder if when I'm like 95 I will randomly go on here and STILL see people talking about how he should of started over Lance still. #1 defense in the NBA last year...yep, let's just change that by switching Born Ready with Old Man Granger and hope for the best.

    Like, let me pull an Allen Iverson here - we're talking about changing up the number one defense here. We are undergoing a second season without Granger in the lineup, the Pacers got within one game of the Finals, and people actually have the ****ing nerve to say we should just say **** IT LET'S SWITCH UP THE STARTING UNIT. Sorry, as AI says, "Look, it's funny to me too." But we're talking about dissembling a hardcore lineup here man. I mean how silly is that?? We're talking about moving Hill to shooting guard, putting Lance at point, etc. Hey, did you guys know that Vogel is a mother****ing knowledgable coach? I think he knows what the hell he is doing. I mean we were within one game of the finals and we are talking about trading our starting point guard that helped us earn the title of being the #1 defensive team in the NBA.

    This is worse than moving Halloween to November 1st.
    It's funny you should bring that up, because without his calf injury Granger would be starting right now as per Coach Vogel. But this thread isn't really talking about Lance starting over Granger or vice versa, it's been a conversation about Lance at the PG spot. Who in this thread is straying far enough off topic so far to make it Granger vs Lance?
    Last edited by aamcguy; 10-30-2013 at 07:06 PM.

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


  20. #62
    Your Daddy RobRoy317's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bloomington, IN
    Age
    21
    Posts
    128

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's funny you should bring that up, because without his calf injury Granger would be starting right now as per Coach Vogel. But this thread isn't really talking about Lance starting over Granger or vice versa, it's been a conversation about Lance at the PG spot. Who in this thread is straying far enough off topic so far to make it Granger vs Lance?
    That is my point, is that AFTER the calf injury, I'm still seeing stuff about it. I am seeing people talk about Danny coming back into the lineup as a starter in the coming months. Literally in this thread I'm reading people talking about wanting to see a GH, PG, DG, DW & RH starting lineup, about how Lance and George should swap positions, etc.

    And hey, PD guidelines implies not to single out anyone out so I can't help you there. I'm not calling out anyone specific, really, I just can't believe after a year of Danny struggling with injuries I am STILL seeing people wanting him in the starting lineup.

    You're right, it IS funny I brought that up - because Danny DOES have a calf injury, brah. IF Danny had a calf injury? He 100% does have a calf injury. So why are you bringing up hypothetical situations in which he doesn't?
    "What you are witnessing right now is the old Danny Granger of old!!" - Chris Denari 01/01/2014

  21. #63
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    5,118

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo 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
    If he did meet all my if's in the coming months, I really want to see a Lance, Paul, Danny, David, Roy lineup. I think that's as much talent as we're capable of packing into one 5-man unit.
    Nowhere does it say STARTING lineup. Just a lineup of these 5 players together.

  22. #64
    Your Daddy RobRoy317's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bloomington, IN
    Age
    21
    Posts
    128

    Sports Logo 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
    Nowhere does it say STARTING lineup. Just a lineup of these 5 players together.
    If we're going to nitpick one single point of my multi-layered argument than I might as well shut down my laptop and return it to Best Buy. What I said about Lance and G3 still stands.
    "What you are witnessing right now is the old Danny Granger of old!!" - Chris Denari 01/01/2014

  23. #65
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    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 trying to tread lightly here, but what recent evidence shows that Granger is a better player than George Hill? I can't think of any.
    Seriously?

  24. #66
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,008

    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
    If he did meet all my if's in the coming months, I really want to see a Lance, Paul, Danny, David, Roy lineup. I think that's as much talent as we're capable of packing into one 5-man unit.
    I think we have some common ground here as long as it's enough ball handlers. I'm not entirely convinced Stephenson can handle double teams and pressure. I know Danny isn't going to help there. I would expect Paul to turn the ball over too much.

    I do think George Hill is the best at protecting the basketball...and to have at least one player who can do that is critical.

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


  26. #67
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,008

    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
    IF Lance continues to demonstrate improved decision-making with the ball in his hands.

    IF Lance can adequately guard the position.

    IF Lance proves to be more consistent than last season.

    IF, and this is the biggest question mark to me, Lance shows more growth in regards to his maturity....
    A couple questions for you.

    How do the first and last IF's really differ? Also, how did he fair by your key measurements tonight? 8 boards, 16 points, best FG% on team...

  27. #68
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,492

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo 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
    Seriously?
    Yes, seriously. I think that George Hill is easily a better player than Danny Granger right now and I feel pretty comfortable in saying that.

    There's simply no recent evidence to suggest otherwise. George Hill is a clutch young PG whose presence since becoming a starter has been a major reason for our success. We all saw how poor we looked without him in Game 5 against New York last year. What evidence is there to show that Granger is better than Hill right now? He shot 30 something percent in the pre-season and hasn't played consistent ball in a year and a half. I know that it's just pre-season, but he didn't look like a guy who should even be the fourth or fifth option on a team. George Hill averaged a comfortable 14 PPG last season and is capable of nights like tonight where he takes over with clutch plays. How do we know that Granger can do that right now? We haven't seen it in a long long time. Hill starting definitely helps us maximize our offensive potential.

    I know that people will probably read my post and get ticked off that I'm being anti-DG, but this thread was started on the premise that Hill should possibly be benched for Granger in the future. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm definitely going to give my input on who I think is the better player.

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


  29. #69
    BornRodney ECKrueger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Age
    23
    Posts
    3,928

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    I like how it is now. Hill and Lance are both guards basically. They both create, they both play off the ball.

    We have two guards more than a 1 and 2 guard to me.

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


  31. #70
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    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
    A couple questions for you.

    How do the first and last IF's really differ? Also, how did he fair by your key measurements tonight? 8 boards, 16 points, best FG% on team...
    The first is tactical, the latter is psychological in terms of getting T's, over-selling his injuries, acting silly towards opponents to where it becomes a negative, whatever else like that.

  32. #71
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    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
    Yes, seriously. I think that George Hill is easily a better player than Danny Granger right now and I feel pretty comfortable in saying that.

    There's simply no recent evidence to suggest otherwise. George Hill is a clutch young PG whose presence since becoming a starter has been a major reason for our success. We all saw how poor we looked without him in Game 5 against New York last year. What evidence is there to show that Granger is better than Hill right now? He shot 30 something percent in the pre-season and hasn't played consistent ball in a year and a half. I know that it's just pre-season, but he didn't look like a guy who should even be the fourth or fifth option on a team. George Hill averaged a comfortable 14 PPG last season and is capable of nights like tonight where he takes over with clutch plays. How do we know that Granger can do that right now? We haven't seen it in a long long time. Hill starting definitely helps us maximize our offensive potential.

    I know that people will probably read my post and get ticked off that I'm being anti-DG, but this thread was started on the premise that Hill should possibly be benched for Granger in the future. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm definitely going to give my input on who I think is the better player.
    I mean, of course there's 'no recent evidence' given the circumstances.

    Do I really need to say that my assumption is tied with the assumption that Danny returns to form?

  33. #72
    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 Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The first is tactical, the latter is psychological in terms of getting T's, over-selling his injuries, acting silly towards opponents to where it becomes a negative, whatever else like that.
    Do you mean like this?

    http://youtu.be/sqxHHgwYj24

  34. #73
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,511

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RobRoy317 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That is my point, is that AFTER the calf injury, I'm still seeing stuff about it. I am seeing people talk about Danny coming back into the lineup as a starter in the coming months. Literally in this thread I'm reading people talking about wanting to see a GH, PG, DG, DW & RH starting lineup, about how Lance and George should swap positions, etc.

    And hey, PD guidelines implies not to single out anyone out so I can't help you there. I'm not calling out anyone specific, really, I just can't believe after a year of Danny struggling with injuries I am STILL seeing people wanting him in the starting lineup.

    You're right, it IS funny I brought that up - because Danny DOES have a calf injury, brah. IF Danny had a calf injury? He 100% does have a calf injury. So why are you bringing up hypothetical situations in which he doesn't?
    Because in the preseason he didn't, and Vogel was setting up the rotations so Lance was off the bench. No hypothetical situations, talking about what was already taking place. And you don't have to single anybody out, because I will go ahead and say that nobody was straying off topic. Your post actually was the one that really brought it up.

    The Danny vs. Lance conversations are about which one should start on the wing. THIS discussion is about whether Lance should be our point guard, which would make the discussion Granger vs. Hill. And the main issue there would be whether you want 2 or 3 ballhandlers in that lineup. I think I would still prefer Hill to start because I don't think Lance and Paul are good enough against pressure defenses yet.

    And formulating my response really gives me my response to the thread: I don't think Lance should be the point guard this year. I think it will take at least another year until he is consistent enough to handle the ball more often. And I think the best case scenario if ever he improves that much is to be a ball-dominant SG.

  35. #74
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,379

    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 mean, of course there's 'no recent evidence' given the circumstances.

    Do I really need to say that my assumption is tied with the assumption that Danny returns to form?
    That's a very big assumption that you are making there

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

    JMHO, of course.
    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.

  36. #75
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,517

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

    I love huge lineups, and I suspect the main reason Hicks even considers Lance as a possible starting point is simply because he's huge for a point. Size means everything defensively. (this is why I wanted G3 to start in the first place)

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

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

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

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

    Lance should always prove a better 2 defender than Hill it should be noted. His strength there is much more important. No two will use their size against Lance, though they would against Hill in select matchups...
    Last edited by mattie; 10-31-2013 at 02:27 AM.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

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

Posting Permissions

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