Page 6 of 36 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #126
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,488

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerized View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No but the 82 game regular season where he averaged 8.8 points and 3 rebounds was. Until he does more for the first 20 games of this season I'll reserve declaring he's taken the next. He should continue to get extended minutes for the next few games though which should help his numbers.
    That 8.8 points occurred in his first season of playing heavy minutes. As a 22 year old, he immediately went from bench afterthought to important starter on an elite team. That's a huge change. As a young starter getting his first big opportunity in the NBA, he didn't want to take too many risks and make mistakes. Thus, he generally deferred to the more experienced players on offense. But he was excellent at getting other guys involved and playing physical defense, which helped give us our identity.

    However, his confidence began to build as the season wore on, as we saw in that Game 6 against New York. He began to get more loose with his offense and the coaches allowed him to do so. Keep in mind that this past summer is the first summer that he was able to improve his game based off experience in playing heavy NBA minutes. It's clearly making a big difference. The big difference between last year's Lance and the Lance we have seen these first two games is CONFIDENCE. Last year on offense, he was a timid 22 year old who was playing his first heavy NBA minutes. This year, he is a guy with experience under his belt who has confidence in his abilities and has been given the green light by coaches.

    He's going to help us win all season.

  2. #127
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,517

    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
    No, you can't say the same about George, as much as I like him. George does not power though other guards. He does not feed the post as easily. He does not go to the rack like that and he does not rebound anything close. He also doesn't even handle the basketball better even though he's supposed to be the PG. Again, I like George Hill but he does not have as much talent. He had the benefit of playing in San Antonio and has experience on Lance. While George Hill is a very good player, he simply doesn't have the potential that Lance Stephenson has and is now showing. That's right.

    The fact is, Lance wasn't born ready...but he's ready now. He had a rough background and quite frankly I don't think he's had great coaching. He's not been disciplined and it showed when he entered the league. But that is changing rapidly.
    So Kevin Love won the annual white guy award right? The "does the most with the least talent" award or whatever it is. You realize Kevin Love has a higher vertical, is quicker and faster than Lance Stephenson? This is **** that is measured. This is not something you can argue with because both players were measured, and Love is simply a much quicker athlete than Stephenson. A powerforward, a big man. A guy who makes his money muscling his way in for rebounds down low.

    A powerforward.

    Here's some facts about Stephenson: (Though I'm completely aware that nothing could possibly ever change your mind, we've been over this)

    Lance is very strong, and long for his position. Those are the ONLY natural advantages he has over his opponents. (that is very nice tho)

    Other than that he's slow for his position, whether it is quickness or speed, he's vertical leap is below average for his position. He's unathletic.

    I'm not sure why everyone continues to say the guy is such a great dribbler. He's not. He looses his handle all the time. He has some fantastic moves for sure. With that said, the guy loses control of the ball all the time. He usually gains control after 4 or 5 seconds is gone off the shot clock, but his not a great ball handler.

    You continue to repeat that ******** about his supposed great shooting. The guy was inefficient from everywhere on the court except within 10 feet of the basket. For a guy that only scores 8 points a game he ******* better well be efficient! Of course he should! But even then, he wasn't as efficient as George Hill, Paul George OR David West.

    I hope he turns into a great player, but you are not being realistic, and has been shown before in prior threads, once you make your mind up God himself could come down and tell you differently and you'd disagree...
    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%

  3. #128
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,517

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

    In before the response:

    I promise someone will come in tell me how wrong I am for saying Lance isn't a good dribbler. Which is hilarious because it takes all of about 5 seconds before Lance loses control of the ball and has to gain control of it again. Lance dribbling should be called controlled chaos. It's a disaster that somehow doesn't turn into a turnover much.

    And someone will tell me how laughable it is to call Lance a below average athlete even though by every metric, the guy is just not that great of an athlete. That is compared to the fantastic athletes in the NBA.
    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%

  4. #129
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,488

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In before the response:

    I promise someone will come in tell me how wrong I am for saying Lance isn't a good dribbler. Which is hilarious because it takes all of about 5 seconds before Lance loses control of the ball and has to gain control of it again. Lance dribbling should be called controlled chaos. It's a disaster that somehow doesn't turn into a turnover much.

    And someone will tell me how laughable it is to call Lance a below average athlete even though by every metric, the guy is just not that great of an athlete. That is compared to the fantastic athletes in the NBA.

    Lance helps the Pacers win. That's more important than his vertical leap.

  5. #130
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,517

    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
    Lance helps the Pacers win. That's more important than his vertical leap.
    You know what? I completely agree. I mean he could turn into a star and still be the same below average athlete he is today.

    That doesn't mean half the board has to argue he's a great athlete when it simply isn't true. Or that he's a great shooter, or the number of other things people say. t

    I mean I'm so high on this guy I really am. I love his game, I love just watching him because he can't contain himself on the court. But the things people say about him. It's over the top.
    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%

  6. #131
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,517

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

    OH and someone was attempting to make the argument that he's made massive improvements, and by the time the playoffs came around the guy was a far superior player.

    Well let's look at Lance's crazy playoff performance: 9.4 points per game on .48TS%. Stunning! He shot below 30% from 3 point in the playoffs! Yet you keep talking about his 20 point playoff game like he just lit it up. That was ONE game! James Jones had a 25 point game in the playoffs! Is he a future all-star?
    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%

  7. #132
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,488

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    OH and someone was attempting to make the argument that he's made massive improvements, and by the time the playoffs came around the guy was a far superior player.

    Well let's look at Lance's crazy playoff performance: 9.4 points per game on .48TS%. Stunning! He shot below 30% from 3 point in the playoffs! Yet you keep talking about his 20 point playoff game like he just lit it up. That was ONE game! James Jones had a 25 point game in the playoffs! Is he a future all-star?
    Guess what Paul George averaged in the 2012 playoffs?

    9.7 PPG

    I'm not saying that Lance is going to explode into an offensive machine like Paul George. But you have to keep in mind that last year was the first year in which Lance played big minutes. And he was just 22 years old, the age of most college seniors. The 20 point playoff game showed what Lance is capable of if he gets a green light to do what he wants offensively. That is exactly what he's done the first two games of this season.

  8. #133
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,000

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

    Oh come on Mattie. Ball don't lie. His FG% got much better last year and it's off the charts now. Have you not noticed that his shooting has improved again THIS year? Is 57% from 3 not good enough for you? Not enough sample you say? How about just watching his form and how much better it is this year?

    As for athleticism, Bird was a HOF'er and made his living with his skills...not hops. Lance's game isn't about soaring in for a dunk. But he has shown he can get up there in traffic and unlike Granger he can play above the rim a little. But still, that's not his game. He can see the floor FAR better than most of the Pacers.

    I suppose the team has him handling the ball because he can't dribble, right? He has the best assist to turnover ratio on the entire team this year. It was better than Paul George in both the playoffs and regular season last year. He beats Granger like a drum here. Sure, George Hill protects the ball better. I like George and that might be one of his greater strengths. So I agree Lance doesn't protect the ball as well...but he does a lot of other things a lot better...including hitting the boards. There is no denying he hits the boards well...runs the break fantastic...powers through other guards for an and-one...feeds the post...

    Get on the bus when you can Mattie...because it's about to leave.

  9. #134
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,000

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In before the response:

    I promise someone will come in tell me how wrong I am for saying Lance isn't a good dribbler. Which is hilarious because it takes all of about 5 seconds before Lance loses control of the ball and has to gain control of it again. Lance dribbling should be called controlled chaos. It's a disaster that somehow doesn't turn into a turnover much.

    And someone will tell me how laughable it is to call Lance a below average athlete even though by every metric, the guy is just not that great of an athlete. That is compared to the fantastic athletes in the NBA.
    Paul is the athlete. I've never raved about Lance's hops Mattie. I don't know where you all get that. I've raved about his toughness, his rebounding, his defense, his ability to drive and dish, his ability to see the floor and deliver to the post. As for dribbling, I have not directly emphasized that but he's better than Paul and Danny at that. It's good enough that he can be very effective driving to the bucket which is good enough. He's not exactly Jamaal Tinsley, but neither is DWade. Lance's handle is definitely good enough and his vision is great. Again, you might have another 2 or 3 months to hop on the bus...

  10. #135
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,517

    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
    Oh come on Mattie. Ball don't lie. His FG% got much better last year and it's off the charts now. Have you not noticed that his shooting has improved again THIS year? Is 57% from 3 not good enough for you? Not enough sample you say? How about just watching his form and how much better it is this year?

    As for athleticism, Bird was a HOF'er and made his living with his skills...not hops. Lance's game isn't about soaring in for a dunk. But he has shown he can get up there in traffic and unlike Granger he can play above the rim a little. But still, that's not his game. He can see the floor FAR better than most of the Pacers.

    I suppose the team has him handling the ball because he can't dribble, right? He has the best assist to turnover ratio on the entire team this year. It was better than Paul George in both the playoffs and regular season last year. He beats Granger like a drum here. Sure, George Hill protects the ball better. I like George and that might be one of his greater strengths. So I agree Lance doesn't protect the ball as well...but he does a lot of other things a lot better...including hitting the boards. There is no denying he hits the boards well...runs the break fantastic...powers through other guards for an and-one...feeds the post...

    Get on the bus when you can Mattie...because it's about to leave.
    His FG% got worse. It bottomed out to just about 40% in the playoffs. So no. It did NOT get better.

    If you guys want to talk about his potential, and say, "this guy works so hard I really think he'll be a great player." Say something like, "he can use both his court vision and his ability to bully defenders with his strength to turn into a great player. He's already a solid defender." Im absolutely fine with that. I agree actually!

    I just don't enjoy the hyperbole, and the flat out ********. I like this post better. You admitted he's not a dribbler. You basically admitted he's not an athlete by saying he's a better athlete than Granger which is true. Granger's athleticism has regressed to nothing, so that's true.

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

    Edit - Lance doesn't power to the hoop for and 1's. Once again, just plain false. Lance does NOT get to the free throw line, the numbers prove this.
    Last edited by mattie; 11-02-2013 at 09:26 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%

  11. #136
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,517

    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
    Paul is the athlete. I've never raved about Lance's hops Mattie. I don't know where you all get that. I've raved about his toughness, his rebounding, his defense, his ability to drive and dish, his ability to see the floor and deliver to the post. As for dribbling, I have not directly emphasized that but he's better than Paul and Danny at that. It's good enough that he can be very effective driving to the bucket which is good enough. He's not exactly Jamaal Tinsley, but neither is DWade. Lance's handle is definitely good enough and his vision is great. Again, you might have another 2 or 3 months to hop on the bus...
    I mean. He's not as good as Paul OR Danny at getting to the hoop. Stop believing what you want to believe and just take what you see at face value. Lance is not a good ball handler. He's got some nice moves. The guy could really tighten up his handling and maybe be a good slasher. He'd have to build to that level. I'm not saying he can't. I won't say IS that player right now because he's not.
    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%

  12. #137
    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 aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    With that talent level how did LeBron and Wade manage to upset Lance and friends? We should be holding GOAT discussions, not discussing whether or not he should start. It's so clear now.

    EDIT// I mean, I know you're high on him but come on. If Lance was out injured right now we would still be a contending team. He is very good but he's not to the point where he's vital for the team's success. Everything you posted, with just a slight changing of the ranks on the teams, can also refer to George Hill. He's got gaudy numbers right now, but he didn't play particularly well against the Pelicans. If he can keep up this production all year and into the playoffs he will very much be a vital piece of our team. But right now we're talking about the best two game sequence of his career.
    Oh I see reverse phisocology, NO if Lance is out we are not contenders he is called the Pacers X factor for a reason, not only that but nobody can replace his D(nobody on the bench), Lance is out and we are 0-2 instead of 2-0.

    Seriously if DG was putting the numbers Lance is putting right now in two games some of you would be opening threads about how he can be the Pacers first MVP and a bunch of crazy comments but is Lance so "it has only been 2 games", yeah right.

  13. #138
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,517

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

    This is what Lance has shown so far: He's physical which could lead to him possibly becoming a great defender, (he's pretty good right now) and someone that is good at slashing to the basket. He is not good at that now. He's shown that he has strong court vision. It's remarkable some of the passes he has made. Once again, this has not actually turned into him being a great play maker. I could see that happening. But it hasn't happened yet.
    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%

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:


  15. #139
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,517

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

    Actually OJ has played pretty impressive D so far in the first two games. I wouldnt' be surprised if he turns into a better defender than Lance. Lance's defensive abilities are greatly overrated. He was pretty good last year. Why his stans have to make it out like he's truly great on defense is beyond me.
    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%

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:


  17. #140
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,517

    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
    Guess what Paul George averaged in the 2012 playoffs?

    9.7 PPG

    I'm not saying that Lance is going to explode into an offensive machine like Paul George. But you have to keep in mind that last year was the first year in which Lance played big minutes. And he was just 22 years old, the age of most college seniors. The 20 point playoff game showed what Lance is capable of if he gets a green light to do what he wants offensively. That is exactly what he's done the first two games of this season.
    Yeah, and did you see anyone argue that PG played "great" in the 2012 playoffs? No! That's what is so absurd about this. PG, who has shown a ton of talent since he entered the league had us all excited about his promise. However, no one said anything about how great he was until he actually proved it. Lance has done NOTHING yet. WHy can't we leave it at that until he proves otherwise?
    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%

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:


  19. #141
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,517

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

    Lance had a stretch of 4 games last year I think in february where he averaged something like 16 points per game. He was playing fantastic. I was so excited, I thought had seriously made a major leap. But he hadn't.. He just had a nice stretch of games, but he was still the same inconsistent player. I have high hopes for him. Nothing would make me happier than to see him succeed.

    However, this doesn't make me want to live in a fantasy land where I choose to believe Lance has proven himself to be a great player, and the reason the Pacers are winning. I mean I honestly wonder if Orlando Johnson is better than him RIGHT NOW.
    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%

  20. #142
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,063

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I promise someone will come in tell me how wrong I am for saying Lance isn't a good dribbler. Which is hilarious because it takes all of about 5 seconds before Lance loses control of the ball and has to gain control of it again. Lance dribbling should be called controlled chaos. It's a disaster that somehow doesn't turn into a turnover much.
    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Actually OJ has played pretty impressive D so far in the first two games. I wouldnt' be surprised if he turns into a better defender than Lance.
    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I mean I honestly wonder if Orlando Johnson is better than him RIGHT NOW.

    Glad you are making all these posts. I mean, where would good entertainment be without the Washington Generals or the Coyote?
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to McKeyFan For This Useful Post:


  22. #143
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,517

    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
    Glad you are making all these posts. I mean, where would good entertainment be without the Washington Generals or the Coyote?
    All of my posts had a point, and a fair argument. What's the point of your post?

    More Lance Stans to the rescue please...
    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%

  23. #144
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,063

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    All of my posts had a point, and a fair argument. What's the point of your post?
    The point of my post was to marvel at yours.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  24. #145
    Member pogi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    445
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I mean. He's not as good as Danny at getting to the hoop.
    I'm sorry, but I completely disagree.

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


  26. #146
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,000

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pogi View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm sorry, but I completely disagree.
    Particularly right now. Danny isn't playing and there is no proof he will ever be the same player. Time to turn the page...

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


  28. #147
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    5,114

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    I think Lance has some good potential, and I do believe he is a key cog to the team...but I also feel some of the ideas about his game are a tad overblown on this board at times. Anytime a player who has yet to average double figures for an entire season is dubbed things such as "a poor man's Lebron" it can be viewed as a bit over the top (seeing as Lebron is already a top 10 Nba Player of all time) This is why Mattie says the hyperbole can be a bit much.

    We point to Lance's FG% to show that he's an efficiently skilled, high level offensive player--but we don't mention the fact that he was in the top 5 in the league in field goals that were assisted last year. We also don't mention that he was the 5th option offensively so most of his shots were either wide open, or within a favorable situation. This isn't a knock on Lance as a guy like Gerald Green showed that not everybody can be as efficient offensively, but it brings a little bit of perspective to Lance as a player.

    So far this year Lance has shown improvements of his 3point shot, as well as his confidence overall. He's taken more advantage of his strength advantages in fast and semi break situations, and is getting himself an extra 4-6 ppg by offensive rebound put backs. Defensively he's still a plus--showing the same aggressiveness and bravado, but as Eric Gordon showed-- he's still not exactly a lockdown defender either.

    All in all when I see Lance I see a cross between a smarter Rodney Stuckey and a more Wesley Matthews. Both are bigger, more physical two guards that are aggressive at getting to the cup. (Stuckey is craftier with his In-between game, and has a better handle and court vision, whereas Matthews is the better defender and 3pt shooter--hence a mix of the two when I see Lance.)

    I'm sure some will feel its a slap in the face because I'm not comparing him to Chauncey Billups or Lebron, but it's not a knock on Lance at all as both players are legit 2-guards in this league and that's coming a long way for Lance seeing as he barely saw the court in his two seasons before last. The big difference between Lance and the other two is that he's been able to play with a team trying to contend and be great as he is growing into his niche as an NBA player. This is huge for a players development and confidence (see Paul George, Kawai Leonard, James Harden)

    The best part about all this is we are only two games into the season and have a long way to go to judge Lance and to see where he is currently as a player, and where he could be as a player down the line.

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


  30. #148
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    5,114

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Particularly right now. Danny isn't playing and there is no proof he will ever be the same player. Time to turn the page...
    Till we see Granger actually play and produce this is actually true. And this is from DG fanboy número uno

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to Ace E.Anderson For This Useful Post:


  32. #149

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yeah, and did you see anyone argue that PG played "great" in the 2012 playoffs? No! That's what is so absurd about this. PG, who has shown a ton of talent since he entered the league had us all excited about his promise. However, no one said anything about how great he was until he actually proved it. Lance has done NOTHING yet. WHy can't we leave it at that until he proves otherwise?
    I think that's what still bothers me about Lance. And it's not even Lance's fault.

    He's impressed me. I never thought he'd be as good as he is. Early on, he showed a lack of bball IQ and an inability to play a team game, immaturity (with no signs of changing), a poor shot, an inability to finish at the rim, and in general he was out of control. Just all the signs of a player people tend to get excited about, but never turn out well. (I've seen it so many times at the college level..).

    He was a rare case that worked out. Because he had someone (Larry Bird..) backing him, and because he took it upon himself to change and get better. Good for him, good for the Pacers, and good for the fans who needed a positive story.

    That being said, the guy gets more love than any Pacer. When Paul George was playing at a higher level than Lance, people were questioning whether he would just turn into Brandon Rush 2.0. Although Danny's health is a concern, it's totally possible that Danny comes back healthy and plays at a higher level than Lance is playing..and possibly might ever play at. Yet, you get the impression from a lot of people that they'd trade just about anyone in order to keep Lance. (maybe not Paul George. maybe. But there have been plenty of posters insisting that Lance will be a better player than PG.)

    Look, I'm more than willing to admit I was wrong about the guy. And I'm happy too. But the hype still significantly outweighs what he's actually accomplished. (And given what realistic expectations were, he's certainly accomplished a lot.) Calm down guys.

  33. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Sookie For This Useful Post:


  34. #150
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,000

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

    Rodney Stuckey is not a bad comparison and isn't a slap in the face to Lance supporters...or shouldn't be. Stuckey is a notch below all-star caliber which is where Lance is trying to prove himself. But Lance has more potential. Lance blows away Stuckey on rebounds. Lance is 25 lbs heavier people...a lot more physical. He's a better shooter. Look at Stuckey's FG% historically. Lance may never shoot that bad. Yet Stuckey is a very good NBA player. Again, there are a few seats left on the bus. Hop on before it fills up.

    Also, a poor man's LeBron is a subjective phrase. I used that phrase and I don't think it says anything other than he's a well rounded, talented and physical player...which he is. He has the court vision, ability to drive to the rack, rebound, etc. These are simply the facts. That's not to say he's LeBron. He is really a poor man's LeBron and I stand by that.

  35. The Following User Says 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
  •