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

Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Danny Granger

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

  • #76
    Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Danny Granger

    Let me see if I have this straight...
    We're allowed to wonder why the team can't sell tickets in bushel baskets.
    We're allowed to question why certain teams don't just at times have our number but can steamroll us.
    We're allowed to wonder what happened to smashmouth basketball, wonder why our offense doesn't flow, and wonder why our winning percentage has suffered.
    And we're allowed to speculate about our chances to do anything from win in the first round to actually win the first round.

    ....But don't be caught suggesting Danny Granger has any areas in his game that need to improve. Afterall, he's not Tim Duncan. ...Therefore he is beyond question.

    Any problems the team has simply cannot be Granger's fault nor can he share in those problems.

    Got it...

    For those of us who like Granger the fact remains if he doesn't improve these areas quickly he won't be in a Pacers uniform for the long term. If Granger's mindset is the same as some of you defending him, then he's as good as gone. George will get the opportunity to be the team's #1 player without Granger around and someone like George Hill will move up into the starting lineup. ...Depending on how trade scenarios play out of course.

    This team isn't going to build thru the draft so this team needs to mix and match assets and find the right blend not only to win on the court but also to move the needle with the general public. Players that hit their ceilings too soon cannot get automatic free passes into subsequent seasons.
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Danny Granger

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      I think this comes down to one simple idea. Many of us want Danny to be more like Chauncey Billups in terms of discipline and control of his actions on the floor and less like Gilbert Arenas. I am not comparing Danny to either of these players. Just their decision-making.

      ...and no, I don't think Danny is the only or the worst #1 player in the league in terms of carelessness.
      Billups is WAY more in love with the whole pull up shot out of nowhere that kills momentum than Danny is or ever has been. He hits lots of them, but that doesn't make them good decisions.
      Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Danny Granger

        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
        A couple years ago, I really thought Deng made too many stupid mistakes. That's when he was the best player on the team. Now that Rose carries that responsibility, Deng's a more efficient player.

        I haven't watched Iggy enough to say for certain one way or the other. But the Coach K thing is a non-sequitur... Granger's playing a totally different style of ball than he was back then.
        Deng is shooting .408 this season, he really hasn't been very much more efficient than Danny at all, and that's WITH the even more stacked team than ours. Over his last 10 he's been shooting the ball more and averaging .353 from the field.

        Danny is getting way too much hate, yes he isn't perfect, but what some ignore is that he HAS improved in lots of areas. His post game for instance, is far more developed, effective and advanced than he's shown before in the pros. Ditto to driving to the basket, he's actually been very effective attacking the basket, typically scoring or getting a foul. He's also been a very good defensive player this year, most of the times he loses his man you can see the reason, which is typically being forced to rotate to the middle because DC couldn't keep his man out of the paint leaving Danny's guy open in the corner for a wide open shot.

        He has improved in most areas this season, the only thing he's been worse at is his jumpshot, which we KNOW he has, .

        Since the All-Star break Danny has averaged 17.6 ppg 5 rpg on 44 percent from the field and .333 from 3 and getting to the line around 5 times a game (more recently), those offensive numbers, along with his improved defense, which he's continued to display this year are perfectly acceptable to me over the course of the season, especially since that is still taking into account his 3 point shooting slump, which a shooter of Danny's calibre is sure to emerge from. Once his 3 point shooting gets back to it's typical 38-40 percent clip he'll stabilize around 20 ppg, which is more than enough given the offensive options we have on the floor now.

        It's just a bit ironic to me that those that gave Danny all kinds of criticism for his me-first offensive show for years are now still really laying it on him now that he's become much closer to what they said they always wanted him to be, albeit with a slumping jumpshot that imo is sure to correct itself.
        Last edited by daschysta; 03-26-2012, 11:25 AM.
        Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Danny Granger

          Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
          I literally feel dumber by reading this thread...so Danny isn't on par with Tim freaking duncan...I feel like some of you get your basketball iq from video games, it's not the same people sheesh...Timmy d in his prime is one of the greatest players that ever saw the floor
          The problem isn't from reading this thread. I've never seen such a massive amount of misunderstanding of a basic comparison in my life. It's a epic S.A.T. fail.


          IN THE AREA OF GAME AWARENESS/BASKETBALL IQ (and not in any other way compared)

          Tim Duncan = great/classic example of how fundamentals make the game easier
          Danny Granger = moderate at best, and given his actual IQ this is considered a sub-par level

          Duncan also happens to be gifted with height and athletic ability. Paired with his game IQ this results in a GOAT caliber player.

          Danny has a good but not great set of wing skills. If he pairs them with the IQ he could and should have all the time then he'd be back on the all-star team.


          NONE OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH WHERE HE WAS DRAFTED. This isn't about "what a dud this pick was" because we are well into a NEW VET CONTRACT that was signed by an ALL-STAR SF, not a #17 pick.

          He raised the bar on his standards and got PAID FOR IT TOO, it's not some one-way street where he gets nothing but we hold him to tougher expectations. He's a captain and paid well. He was put on Team USA and was an all-star. That's a lot of praise that you don't give to #17 picks either.


          So evaluating his output as a #17 pick, yes, he's been great, far above normal #17 expectations (ditto Roy).


          But evaluating what he could be or what he needs to do to maintain that new standard he's had problems. He could be Reggie-lite but often his own decisions make the game harder for himself and his team.

          We see what he CAN DO and he's often great, both in skill and effort. So he gets evaluated at that level, at the CAPTAIN'S level, not the scrub #17 hoping to stick with his 5th team level.




          By the way, I'm not a singer but I can still hear if someone is singing way off key.* Criticism doesn't require the ability to do it yourself, only the ability to observe and compare in an intelligent way.






          * not a shot at Danny
          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-26-2012, 11:54 AM.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Danny Granger

            Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
            This was basically a troll thread. ALL NBA players make mistakes. Granger is NOT a superstar, so we need to stop holding him to the standards of one.
            What's Danny Granger's biggest problem??
            You all know what it is....
            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Danny Granger

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              I completely agree that Danny sometimes makes stupid plays. But who in the NBA doesn't? I mean, Mike Dunleavy was universally heralded at a player with a super-high basketball IQ, but he made as many boneheaded plays as Danny, if not more.
              Personally I thought Dun's IQ was vastly overrated due to his athletic style of play.

              Plenty of unforced TOs, tons of defensive lapses. He works a good 2 man game on offense and passes pretty well, but I think George Hill plays a much smarter all-around game than either of them.

              Hill is far more likely to fail trying to do what needs to be done than he is to fail because he wasn't doing the right thing.



              And this isn't just IQ, we know there is a lot of ego involved with NBA ball. The smart guys learn how to tune that out or use it against opponents.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Danny Granger

                Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                I think you need to watch other NBA players more closely. We are way too critical of this team in general, the grass is always greener on the other side as we don't see other teams nearly as much as we see the Pacers.
                Well I will agree with this too. It is informative to go out of your way to watch some other teams play, and not just the big games. Give one of these other games the full attention you'd give a Pacers game. Watch some of those individuals as though they were some of your favorite players.



                Of course this is also why I'm melting down about game like WSH and PHX because the Pacers are talented enough to not struggle with those teams in those situations, but they did anyway.

                These guys are so close to something special if only they could stay on the same page for larger portions of the game.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Danny Granger

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  Personally I thought Dun's IQ was vastly overrated due to his athletic style of play.

                  Plenty of unforced TOs, tons of defensive lapses. He works a good 2 man game on offense and passes pretty well, but I think George Hill plays a much smarter all-around game than either of them.

                  Hill is far more likely to fail trying to do what needs to be done than he is to fail because he wasn't doing the right thing.



                  And this isn't just IQ, we know there is a lot of ego involved with NBA ball. The smart guys learn how to tune that out or use it against opponents.
                  Personally, my opinion of Dun was that he was a bright basketball player. But would often do things out of frustration from lack of intelligence of teammates or coaches.

                  I'm not sure whether it was in a similar vain to Kobe passing up every shot to make a point. Or Dun's frustration overcoming him. But it doesn't make sense that he could show an incredible awareness and intelligence for the game in play after play, and then make a randomly stupid play.

                  Washington and Phoenix. I've said this a million times. These guys are young. They are talented, but they are young and inexperienced. That's going to cause close games that shouldn't be close, losses that shouldn't happen, and...some wins that shouldn't happen either.

                  If you watch a lot of college ball, that isn't like a Kentucky team (young talented players come for one year and leave), you've seen this progression a lot. I've mentioned the Uconn women a lot here. The best players have graduated. Their best players are a sophomore, a freshman, and a junior that can't score. (BTW: Kelly Faris, and Indiana girl. If you're a basketball junkie, you HAVE to watch her play. She can't shoot. But she's a perfect basketball player in every other way. ) And they did stuff this season like lose to an unranked opponent at home. Uconn Women hadn't lost at home for four years and they hadn't lost to an unranked opponent in about 20. But..they also may win the title this year too.

                  Talent needs to grow up before it can be consistent, and win games it should win. And our most important piece is Paul George, whose a raw 21 year old. When he gets to a point where he is consistent, we'll be consistent.
                  Last edited by Sookie; 03-26-2012, 12:30 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Danny Granger

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    A couple years ago, I really thought Deng made too many stupid mistakes. That's when he was the best player on the team. Now that Rose carries that responsibility, Deng's a more efficient player.

                    I haven't watched Iggy enough to say for certain one way or the other. But the Coach K thing is a non-sequitur... Granger's playing a totally different style of ball than he was back then.
                    I agree.

                    But I do think Iggy took a step forward by improving his fundamental approach to the game and dialing back his role. This is allowed by the roster changes of course, but I think Iggy has been far better at blending back in with a very similar Sixers roster than Danny has.

                    But to be fair to Danny the change and effort to get back on track ARE THERE. You'd have to be nuts to not see the dramatic improvement in defensive effort.


                    I think the team has an issue of too many guys about equal in importance all trying to decide who gets to be the boss, and not comfortable/friendly enough with each other to not need a boss in order to work together.

                    I mean Hill and West just got here. I'd really like to see this group stay together for 2 more years at least (ie, resign West) because their talent balance could really create something difficult to stop.


                    And no offense to Vogel, but it's Doug Collins. That helps a lot too.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Danny Granger

                      Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                      Personally, my opinion of Dun was that he was a bright basketball player. But would often do things out of frustration from lack of intelligence of teammates or coaches.

                      I'm not sure whether it was in a similar vain to Kobe passing up every shot to make a point. Or Dun's frustration overcoming him.
                      Well he often turned the ball over in the backcourt with a bad pass. Maybe not as often as Troy, but way more than he should have for it to be a strength.

                      But it could have been lack of concentration or interest due to the situation I suppose. Still there are players that overcome that and those that succumb to it. So I guess we are putting emotional IQ on the table too. Unfortunately Pacers fans know all too well what the low end of that scale looks like.




                      BTW everyone, the thread title does say that Danny is BELOVED, and I'm pretty certain McKeyFan wasn't being sarcastic.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Danny Granger

                        Welcome back to the dark side Seth, just so you know next time you won't be allowed back
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Danny Granger

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          Let me see if I have this straight...
                          We're allowed to wonder why the team can't sell tickets in bushel baskets.
                          We're allowed to question why certain teams don't just at times have our number but can steamroll us.
                          We're allowed to wonder what happened to smashmouth basketball, wonder why our offense doesn't flow, and wonder why our winning percentage has suffered.
                          And we're allowed to speculate about our chances to do anything from win in the first round to actually win the first round.

                          ....But don't be caught suggesting Danny Granger has any areas in his game that need to improve. Afterall, he's not Tim Duncan. ...Therefore he is beyond question.

                          Any problems the team has simply cannot be Granger's fault nor can he share in those problems.

                          Got it...
                          Apparently, you didn't get it.

                          You're allowed to criticize anything and anyone. This is a message board. You can speak and express yourself freely.

                          But don't expect everyone else to agree.

                          As a wise man said once "Opinions are like ********. Everybody got one". People are bound to disagree.

                          PS: Especially, when a comment seems overreacting or knee-jerk-ish.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Danny Granger

                            It's pretty easy to have a high basketball IQ when you're sitting in the comfort of your living room. When you step on the court, and all the other variables like stress and fatigue come into play, it starts seperating the men from the boys.

                            You find me a player that doesn't make poor basketball decisions during a game, and I'll show you a liar.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Our beloved, but less than brilliant, Danny Granger

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              And no offense to Vogel, but it's Doug Collins. That helps a lot too.
                              Important point.

                              I'm a huge Vogel fan, but the jury is still out regarding how well he teaches the fundamentals and how willing he is to enforce them. Is he a Larry Brown (the reason I became a Pacer fan in the first place) or is he more like his father figure?

                              He's hasn't resembled JOB in just about anything else, so here's hoping the same is true on this score.

                              This thread is about Danny. It is about Vogel—what kind of culture of discipline, smarts, and fundamentals he is pushing for. It's about JOB—just how much damage was caused on this score by Vogel's predecessor.

                              It's about Larry Bird's commitment to this area. Quite frankly, I'm not sure he's as good as Walsh on this score (though he is better on many other fronts).
                              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                The problem isn't from reading this thread. I've never seen such a massive amount of misunderstanding of a basic comparison in my life. It's a epic S.A.T. fail.


                                IN THE AREA OF GAME AWARENESS/BASKETBALL IQ (and not in any other way compared)

                                Tim Duncan = great/classic example of how fundamentals make the game easier
                                Danny Granger = moderate at best, and given his actual IQ this is considered a sub-par level

                                Duncan also happens to be gifted with height and athletic ability. Paired with his game IQ this results in a GOAT caliber player.

                                Danny has a good but not great set of wing skills. If he pairs them with the IQ he could and should have all the time then he'd be back on the all-star team.


                                NONE OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH WHERE HE WAS DRAFTED. This isn't about "what a dud this pick was" because we are well into a NEW VET CONTRACT that was signed by an ALL-STAR SF, not a #17 pick.

                                He raised the bar on his standards and got PAID FOR IT TOO, it's not some one-way street where he gets nothing but we hold him to tougher expectations. He's a captain and paid well. He was put on Team USA and was an all-star. That's a lot of praise that you don't give to #17 picks either.


                                So evaluating his output as a #17 pick, yes, he's been great, far above normal #17 expectations (ditto Roy).


                                But evaluating what he could be or what he needs to do to maintain that new standard he's had problems. He could be Reggie-lite but often his own decisions make the game harder for himself and his team.

                                We see what he CAN DO and he's often great, both in skill and effort. So he gets evaluated at that level, at the CAPTAIN'S level, not the scrub #17 hoping to stick with his 5th team level.




                                By the way, I'm not a singer but I can still hear if someone is singing way off key.* Criticism doesn't require the ability to do it yourself, only the ability to observe and compare in an intelligent way.






                                * not a shot at Danny
                                The problem is I don't think anyone on here considers danny what is likely the highest IQ, best fundamental basketball player of all time (yeah that's Tim Duncan) ...it's like saying I am no Josh groban, I can sing but I am no Josh groban. Well no ****. Trying to compare tim to Danny is just not a good comparison, good luck McKeyfan finding another Tim Duncan, who is unquestionably one of the greatest basketball players of all time.
                                Ps. I never said a word about dannys draft status.
                                Last edited by Dgreenwell3; 03-26-2012, 02:12 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X