Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Is Danny Granger overrated?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
    I still think the "concussion is basically a bad headache" line is awesome.
    Yes...it's reflective of someone who either (a) has never had one themselves, or (b) has never sufficiently recovered from the one they had.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      The idea that anyone thinks Danny isn't tough is laughable. I'm sorry. He has proven his toughness more than once.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

        Originally posted by WetBob View Post
        At Memphis, he leaves the game with what is called a concussion and doesn't return. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a "concussion" that mild is nothing more then a headache. If he was tough, would he have ever left the floor at all?
        Wow, thanks Anthem, I didn't see this before.

        First off, you clearly have no knowledge about brain injuries nor athletic training. In the very first athletic training course I took, we covered concussions and they made it very clear, you do NOT mess around with them.

        If there is even a hint that a player has one, your professional advice must be that they sit out until further tests can be ran, or symptoms subside for atleast THREE DAYS.

        Do you know that if a person suffers a concussion while recovering from a previous one, that they have a 50% chance of death or irreversible brain damage? That's why the NFL is taking such a hardline stance now with them. Not only that, but once you have one, you're more likely to get more in the future.

        Concussions are a VERY VERY serious medical condition, that you don't mess around with. Even if you have a Grade 1, you're most likely going to be out several days.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

          Originally posted by WetBob View Post
          At the risk of alienating myself from members of this board, which I have come to really enjoy lurking on for some time and now that my Colts have once again shattered my hopes and dreams, I plan on contributing much more, but I feel like this is a question that needs to be asked.

          There is no question that right now Danny is the best player on the team, it remains to be seen whether that will continue to be the case with the hopefully imminent return of Mike Dunleavy, but it just seems to me like there are too many people here who think that he is a great NBA player because he has been scoring consistently this season. In my opinion, Danny is not a great player. He's good, but no where near the level that some posters here seem to believe.

          What does he do really well? He's a fantastic spot up shooter. He's a decent shooter off of one dribble. He's shown the ability to block shots from the help side. Beyond that? I don't see it. He's an extremely sub-par ball handler, a worse passer, but more than anything, what really bothers me is he doesn't seem all that tough. Now, I'm sure I will be lambasted for that comment, and maybe it's just. People will point to the Celtics' game and the broken teeth issue and what not. But does that really make him tough? Sure he plays hard, its great seeing the best player on your team diving on the floor for loose balls late in a blowout game, but to me that was one instance. More an anomaly then the rule. At Memphis, he leaves the game with what is called a concussion and doesn't return. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a "concussion" that mild is nothing more then a headache. If he was tough, would he have ever left the floor at all? Against the Knicks he takes a knock and acts like someone shot him in the leg. Now, credit should be given where credit is due, and he finished the game, shot the free throws and hung in there. But, Danny is our best player!! He's our leader. He needs to lead by example. Suck it up, don't show weakness. Lead the team.

          Perhaps I'm being overly critical, as I'm sure I will be told numerous times, but we are at a point in the season where we can't afford to be so soft. We need to get tougher!! It is a good thing we were able to close out the games in New York and against the Kings because if we hadn't I fear we may have gone 0-for January. Our schedule this month is brutal. We have 15 more games to go in January, if we win 4 or 5 of those I will be pleasantly surprised. Obviously getting Mike back will help, but unless we show more toughness then we did the first 2 months, it isn't going to make enough of a difference.

          In my personal opinion, that toughness needs to improve immensely, and it starts with Danny Granger.
          Man, that has to be one of the worst arguments I've ever seen. I have no problem if you think Danny Granger is overrated, thats your opinion and your entitled to it.

          However, if your going to say something like that, at least make points that back what your saying. Every point you made has the evidence to prove you wrong. This line is the worst: "...a "concussion" that mild is nothing more then a headache." Seriously? I can't believe anyone would even say that haha. Thats worthy of a and maybe a . A concussion can be very serious if not taken care of. If he were to go back out, for one, he'd be really woozy and dizzy, but if he were to go back out and something else hit him in the head, maybe an elbow or something, it could have been career ending. It would take another serious blow, but there can be permanent damage in certain situations. I think others have already stated that, I didn't really go through and read every other post, but everything you said has the evidence to prove you wrong. It would sort of be like me saying "Jordan wasn't the best because he could never win it all." Obviously thats an extreme example, but still.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

            Have we really run out of all other Pacer conversation topics?

            He's tough as nails, and has performed exceptionally well given the circumstances. He runs hot and cold, as most players do, but he's just heading towards the prime of his career.

            Sheesh, lets move on.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

              the ONLY way i could consider Danny Granger overrated is...the fact that i believe he can still get better as a player..once he gets a " killer instinct" and begins to finish hard around the rim... then he truly can be rated.


              Granger is not done developing..

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

                Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                Wow, I'm a moron.

                I was trying to figure out why so many people were taking this post seriously when Gnome was clearly joking, then I realized that it was some dude named WetBob. I went back and looked at the original post, and I apparently saw the avatar but didn't look at the name.

                So apparently the dude's not joking. My mistake, let the open season commence.

                I still think the "concussion is basically a bad headache" line is awesome.
                I don't think I could type something like that and keep a strait face...

                Anyway, I thought you were speaking of me for this classic line that sums up my thoughts on the original post..., "Opinions are like assh*les, everybody has one."

                As for the "over-rated" thing... What's the rating? Who's doing the rating? Are we talking for DG's potential to be an East All-Star?

                The only place I know that he is rated is in NBA 2K9. Recently, his overall player rating was increased to 92 overall placing him in tie with Carmelo Anthony and Paul Pierce for the 2nd best SF in the NBA... according to 2K Sports. In that case, Danny is indeed... "over-rated".

                As for the other cases, Danny is a great player and I'm just going to sit back and enjoy his development. We might be growing a star and it may be the only enjoyment of watching this team outside of watching the young guys develop and the team grow together.
                ...Still "flying casual"
                @roaminggnome74

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

                  Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                  There are plenty of players who have become high scorers for a couple of seasons due to being the only option on bad teams. I'm not sure where Danny may eventually fall on that list but until this team turns it around.....the shoe fits. Tony Campbell, Kelly Tripucka, Dennis Scott & LaPhonso Ellis all come to mind as players who scored alot of points in these type of situations then disappeared when they moved on to better teams.
                  Dennis Scott scored big for a BAD team? No, he scored big when he had Shaq, Penny and Nick Anderson out there with him. And his big 3PT season came with the shorter arc to boot.

                  Tripucka and Ellis were solid players, though Ellis had that one season of 20+ for a bad Nuggets team mostly due to them getting Jax from the Pacers for 50 games. Plus they had Dale Ellis still ripping from deep. And even still he didn't get over 20 per game despite their very high pace factor.

                  Tripucka had strong seasons for the Pistons when they were winning 46 games a couple of years in a row. KT just got old and broken down.

                  And as has been said, the flaw with "good on bad team" and the "well someone has to get those stats and score those points" is EFFICIENCY. Iverson, IMO, was a guy who looked greater than he was due to being given all the offensive chances. He's typically shot the ball very poorly and made up for it with FTAs.

                  So certainly every team will have a leading scorer, but usually if the team is bad it means the leading scorer is having to do more work with less team. If the guy is truly mediocre then he's not going to be up to the challenge of scoring big while maintaining a quality FG%.

                  We aren't just sitting on 25 ppg to announce Danny as great. It's the shooting PCT, his ability to get to the line, and his defensive effort that get him the credit he gets.

                  Last night he hit that one 3 with a guy swiping right through his shot mid-air. That's typical of his play. The weakness of the other options has brought the focus down on him, yet his scoring and effectiveness have only gone up (or stayed the same at worst).


                  Of the NBA players taking at least 14 shots per game (43 NBA players), Granger's 1.37 points per shot is 5th in the NBA. And look at the company that puts him in.

                  Amare 1.56
                  D Harris 1.51
                  Bosh 1.45
                  James 1.44
                  Granger 1.37
                  Roy 1.35
                  Duncan 1.33

                  If you drop down to 13 FGAs you can pick up Paul and Yao both with a 1.48. Still leaves Danny as a top 10 EFFICIENT VOLUME scorer.

                  And of guys shooting from the outside a lot where FG% tends to drop and fouls are harder to come by Danny again ranks really high. The top 50 3PA guys go down to 3.8 per game, Danny is taking 6.7. His 1.37 PPS here ranks him 6th. Totally different group of AS caliber players except for Granger and Lebron.

                  Posey 1.48
                  James 1.44
                  Billups 1.44
                  K Martin 1.43
                  R Allen 1.39
                  Granger 1.37

                  He's also 12th in 2P% among this same list of top 3PA shooters (ie pure shooters who are even more deadly as they get inside the arc).

                  He's also 7th in PPS among the top 20 PPG scorers in the NBA (Dwight Howard joins this list plus guys previously mentioned).

                  His weakness is TOs, but of the top 20 he's one of the few that's not a true PG or combo-guard (Nash, Wade). His TO/STL and TO/AST are poor in comparison to those passing/quick hands players, but one of the guys on that list that mostly closely matches Danny's TO/STL and TO/AST ratios is Carmelo Anthony. Another close match is Paul Pierce.


                  His stats, ie his tangible, measurable results, state that he is playing at the level that other AS caliber players play at. When you see James or Pierce do whatever it is they do, they end up accumulating the same types of numbers Granger is. I don't care if he flopped like a turtle and the ball magically went in 50% of the time, results are who you are.

                  Danny is making the most of his chances and is scoring at an elite player level.


                  Good players on bad teams like Durant or Rudy Gay aren't doing that. Frankly there aren't many guys in the top scorers list that haven't proven themselves already on good teams (like Butler, Vince, Jamison, Gordon), and Butler/Jamison are both shooting a significantly lower PCT than Danny despite having at least each other to rely on.


                  BE AMAZED STAT - Granger is getting 7.0 FTAs per game, Kobe gets 7.3!
                  Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-06-2009, 05:46 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

                    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                    Yes, Danny is overrated.

                    And you know what? The fault of that is with the talkers and not with Danny. Sports commentators are often full of baloney. They talk a hundred words a minute and never think about whether their words will still be true tomorrow. Some fans, too, overrate Granger. Other underrate him. Most comparisons are unwise, because there are too many variables and too few cons6tants to make those comparisons meaningful. As Since86 points out in the preceding post, Danny would be a different player if he played on a different team.


                    "The Night Watch" by Rembrandt is a very good painting. I think it is too dark, but my opinion doesn't affect the fact that it is an acknowledged masterpiece. Danny is a very good player. He is as good as his stats indicate that he is. He is exactly as good as he looks, night in and night out. The fact that some people overpraise him and others over-criticize him doesn't affect what he is. He's good.

                    Wow, that was an awesome post. IMO, overrated or underrated I know that Danny is a very good basketball player that seems to have the ability to score despite defenses exclusively keying in on him night in and night out.

                    I don't really care what a lot of people on a message board say but I do pay attention to what the opposing coaches and scouts have to say. George Karl described Danny as an "All-Star this year" and said that Danny is a bigger and stronger Kevin Durant (they had just played OKC a couple of nights before) last night before the game. Doc Rivers had equally nice things to say about Danny and said that he's a difficult player to defend.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

                      We might be growing a star
                      What I'm saying is we are past that point. He might continue to improve and I hope he does, but he's already playing star caliber ball. When top notch guys go out and drop 20+ per night with a couple of huge blocks, hitting at the rim and from deep and generally being pretty darn impressive this is what that looks like.

                      To be all time he has to maintain, but to be star caliber right now is something he's already doing. Reggie was never better than this from a regular season standpoint, even offensively he wasn't much better.

                      Hell, the guy is coming off a 19 ppg season which is itself better than the typical bland player on bad team output. His numbers are in the Reggie first 4 years (or Pip) range. It's nuts, but it's true.

                      Sickest of all is that this is all coming AFTER the extension. It sure is nice to have a contract go the Pacers way (or at least be fair). That's been really rare the last 10 years.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Sickest of all is that this is all coming AFTER the extension. It sure is nice to have a contract go the Pacers way (or at least be fair). That's been really rare the last 10 years.
                        Great point, I've thought this myself. If this had been last year I might not have felt so excited, but we've got this dude locked up for the next six years. It's awesome.
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

                          This is also why I actually liked the length of terms for JO, Ron and Tins. After game 1 vs Detroit that year you are thinking "oh man, at least 5 more years of this pain to rain down on the NBA from the Nap, it's long overdue".

                          Of course then the sports gods decided to remind me that I live in Indy and that success is only used to trick us into experiencing even more devastating suffering, not unlike the 13-0 Colts or the SB win. Just enough to keep you from giving up, but no more than that.


                          I suppose this means we should start insisting that Danny travel in a heavily armored and padded bus as well as sleeping in a bubble boy room. Lord knows what is going to happen to him. Probably one of those falcons from downtown will swoop down and claw his eyes out just as he's getting in a limo for the airport in order to fly to his first NBA AS game.


                          Indy, where game winning buzzer beaters by Reggie are just an appetizer for the main course of game 7 pain. Just enough to cleanse the palette.
                          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-06-2009, 07:03 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

                            Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                            Danny gets frustrated with his fellow teammates easily. I know it is not his job to be Mr. Rah Rah or a team prankster, but I do not know if other Pacer's players like playing with him.

                            You need to watch KG. He is a driven player and he gets into his teamates.
                            They don't have to like him, just respect him.
                            {o,o}
                            |)__)
                            -"-"-

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

                              Granger is probably the main reason I watch the Pacers play. The guy is unique
                              and we are lucky to have him.


                              Toughness? The last time I checked concussions can lead to death.
                              {o,o}
                              |)__)
                              -"-"-

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Is Danny Granger overrated?

                                It's not like Danny is all that much more effecient than Durant on the offensive side of the ball.
                                I'm in these bands
                                The Humans
                                Dr. Goldfoot
                                The Bar Brawlers
                                ME

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X