But as another poster said, why even bring it up at this point. He's gone, you should be living in paradise...well at least until G.Hill comes back.
To state I don't use facts is completely and utterly false. 5 years of under 43% shooting while declining every single year, poor ball handling, poor on and off ball movement, poor defensive discipline, camping out at the wing 3pt line, bad shot selection as in continually passing up an open look for a contested shot or taking a long jumper completely outside the flow of the offense, the fact that the Pacers improved without Granger because we replaced him with someone who is indeed active on the court, etc. I've always used stats and basketball understanding to back up my opinion on Granger. People on the boards don't care for my opinion because those who generally gravitate towards message boards to support their teams are homers who either make excuses or will always defend their players. My comments regarding Hill (or any average starting pg) are the same. Backed up with history and fact.
I challenge anybody to watch any 5 Pacers games throughout Granger's career while watching ONLY Granger and how he moves within the offense, and come away with a differing opinion. He was a decent player for us, but the obsession over him being this great player who could possibly get his jersey retired, has always been over the top, probably how most view my opinion of him. But Granger simply isn't a winning basketball player.
Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay.
No matter what you say or think about him, the average NBA player doesn't have the career or put up the stats Danny did as a Pacer. You don't come within 6 points of being a top 5 scorer within an NBA franchise's history by being an average player. You don't get invited to play on the world basketball championship team if you're an average NBA player.
Everything else you've said (standing around, poor on and off ball movement, poor shot selection, etc) is in fact opinion based. The player you describe Granger to have been is far from the player he actually was. If Danny was as poor of a player as you make it seem, he would have been a fringe player, at best, not a career 18 ppg scorer.
Just because you didn't like the way he got his points or played his game, doesn't mean he wasn't a good player.
Lastly, the pacers improved as we improved the roster. We replaced Earl Watson, Josh Mcroberts and Luther Head with George Hill, David West and Paul George. THATS why we improved. Nobody outside of maybe Lebron could've won many games with that roster or with that coach, PG included. So the fact that PG is more active has nothing to do with your argument. (Even though PG is twice the athlete, and talent that PG was)
Again though, he's gone, so why continue to beat the horse and try to drive your opinion towards him home. You think he's not good, we all know that.
Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 03-02-2014 at 08:34 PM.