I'm not a big fan of Granger. I don't think he creates enough for his teammates offensively, and I think that will stop him from becoming a player good enough to be the best perimeter player on a contender.
That's a very good post, as always. I certainly agree shot creation for others was never one of Granger's strengths. But I also believe his passing is
extremely improved this season - for example, in previous seasons it was extremely rare to see Granger driving and dishing; this one it happens somewhat regularly. Granger, IMO, seems to have a great ability to add new aspects to his game from season to season - this being his most valuable asset, I think.
Also, O'Brien likes his perimeter players to play the 1on1 and create off the dribble; I think a lot of what Granger does on the court is a consequence of that.
That'll likely force him to be the second (next to a LeBron type), or far more likely, the third best player on a title worthy side.
I agree that it's hard to envision a team winning a championship with Granger as their best player. However, who was the best player in those Miller-motorized Indiana teams? Reggie himself? I think that Granger would be a very good 2nd option for a contender and a good "Robin" to almost every "Batman" in the league.
In conjunction at being a below par creator for his teammates offensively, Granger is also a below average rebounder for a small forward.
He's not very good, especially considering his height and frame, but I don't think he's bellow average. His career rebound rate is similar to Pierce's or Butler's, for example. They always have 3 guys playing the transition, and Granger is almost always one of them; that hurts his rebounding numbers I think.
His defense is good (above average) but not elite, which means he really should be the second best defender on the wing instead of the best because it puts too much pressure on his team's other defenders.
Here, it seems you like him more than I do. Perhaps he may be an above average defender, but very slightly above average. I wholeheartedly agree Granger can't be the best wing defender on his team. This is the reason why I believe the Pacers should trade Dunleavy Jr. as soon as they get a quality offer for him.
Danny Granger only does one thing at a high level and that's score the ball.
But he's doing at an extremely high level. I think Granger could have been a jack of all trades; however, I prefer this evolution to an elite scorer.
That's why Granger's Pacers are under-performing despite his career season. That is a squad full of intelligent hard working veterans and they are a lot better than their record indicates. They are under-performing in part because Granger isn't as good as his reputation says he is.
Yes, I agree that that Indiana is a squad full of intelligent hard working veterans and they are a lot better than their record indicates. I think they're underperforming due to 2 main reasons:
- the intelligent hard working veterans have been injured or playing through injuries a lot. Dunleavy is only starting the season now; Ford has been constantly in and out; Rasho has been injured a couple of times; Daniels idem; Murphy as well. They're deep, but having to constantly change rotations and to play guys like Graham, Diener and McRoberts so much carries a price. They need to set a more tighten rotation and so far that's been impossible to do.
- they're an extremely unlucky team. The amount of close games they lost is truly bizarre. Because of their system - and the lack of a true stopper at the perimeter - they aren't a very good team killing of games.
By the way, Mike Dunleavy is a superior offensive player than Granger because of his passing, intelligence, and movement. He does more to create for his teammates and is easier to play with because he does a better job scoring within the offense. Dunleavy also matches Granger on the backboards while playing the two guard position. I think Granger's defense tips the scales in his favour, but I also think the comparison helps show where his game is at and how these flaws (flaws for an elite player) limit him and hold him back.
I don't think that the position they play is relevant. I agree that Dunleavy's offensive game is more complete and well-rounded. But I do believe that Dunleavy has one of the most well-rounded offensive games in the entire league. The "problem" is that he's very good doing lots of things but not truly great doing a single one.
Anyway .... why I don't think the contract is a steal:
Well, the expression "steal" was obviously an hyperbole - I just wanted to give Granger some hype here because he's been scoring a lot of points. However,although we had similar positions when the contract was signed, I now think this deal is better to the Pacers than I thought at that moment - basically because I think Granger is now a better player than he was last season. I wrote during the Summer that if Granger could become a much better player if he could improve his ball-handling. And I think he did that, he became a very solid dribble penetrator - and, consequently, improving his offensive arsenal another step. He's now making 6.2 FT per 36 minutes, doubling his production just from 2 years ago and up by more than 50% from last season. And, as I wrote above, I think he has improved his play-making and passing skills as well. Therefore, while not a steal, I believe it's a very interesting contract for the Pacers - more than I expected it to be.
Topic: Granger (IND), Webster (POR), sign extensions (Read 5312 times)