RealGM

All of ya'll should pick up the new issue. They have a huge article on Danny Granger, very nice read.

Sweet, thanks. Manny is on the cover, isn't he?

Yea he is. The article is titled "What's The Difference Between Danny Granger and Kobe Bryant?"

I found it online, so don't go spending your bills unless you are a collector.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=4018165

Worst Mag on the planet.

Even if Granger isn't going to be top tier, the Pacers can still be contenders with just one more consistent all-star talent. Granger has 3 more seasons before he reaches his prime. Hopefully, he'll be in a better team situation then.

Some of the article was dumb...

League wisdom holds that in a more conventional system than O'Brien's quick-draw, every-look-is-a-good-one scheme, Granger would be good for 17 to 20 points a night.

So Granger's average drops 5-8 points per game in a different system? If our team scored 5 points per game less in a different system I highly doubt all those points are Grangers...

As go-to as Granger has become, though, he is a long way from crashing the league's elite wing triumvirate of Kobe, LeBron and Wade. In fact, if those guys are the first tier of swingmen, most scouts put Granger in the third, behind a group that includes Pierce, Anthony, Johnson, a motivated Vince Carter and a healthy Tracy McGrady. Granger heads a bunch that includes Rashard Lewis, Caron Butler, Andre Iguodala and Josh Howard.

Behind Vince Carter and T-Mac? I'll go ahead and stick with Granger. Also, where are Roy and Durant and others I am probably forgetting?


Overall it was a pretty good article. I really just don't think Chris Broussard knows as much about the Pacers/Granger as he leads on. I feel like he was trying to compliment him, but a lot of it came out in a negative way, I don't know.

Granger rules!

I don't imagine any teams preferring Johnson, Anthony, Carter, and TMac over Granger. I can see some picking Pierce over Granger, but I think that could go either way for some teams. Pierce couldn't even get this many wins before he got Allen and Garnett so who knows.

Granger is definitely a second tier wing though, not third.

The article said a "motivated" Vince Carter. When Carter is motivated he is unstoppable and obviously better than Granger. If he played motivated every night, I would take him over Granger and almost any other wing in the league other than Wade, Lebron and Kobe. It's a shame he lacks effort on too many nights and will always be classified as a "what if?" player.

A motivated Vince Carter of a few years ago I would agree with, but not a motivated VC of now. I guess he is rarely motivated, so I don't even know why that was included in the article.

^ He has had a fair amount of games this year where he would play motivated and has proven that he still has the ability to be one of the best wings in the league. When he mixes his game up and puts getting to the rim ahead of fallaway jumpers first, he is still unstoppable. He just doesn't do it enough.

He can still play well, but I think at this point in his career I would take Granger's best over VC's best and Granger everyday over VC. We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

I love Vince Carter, he is one of my all time favorite UNC players, however, hes not even close to Granger's skill level at this point. As for a "motivated" Carter, you could say Tinsley would have had a better career thank Kidd had he been motivated. If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas.

^Well said. The list could go on. The fact is we compare people with results, not potential.

Anyone would obviously take Granger over Carter @ this point due to age and effort (both offensively and defensively). But when they are both @ their best, even this year, VC is the better player in my opinion.

count55 wrote:Worst Mag on the planet.

Really? Strong words. It's no SI, but I think it's entertaining at least.

PacerPerspective wrote:

count55 wrote:Worst Mag on the planet.

Really? Strong words. It's no SI, but I think it's entertaining at least.

Nope, it sucks.

BTW...SI bores me to tears, as well.

Wow. What do you like to read then?

I've been a subscriber to both for the last decade or so.

PacerPerspective wrote:Wow. What do you like to read then?

I've been a subscriber to both for the last decade or so.

The Economist

I agree with Count here, ESPN's magazine sucks. The only reason I have it is because I signed up to be an Insider on ESPN.com, which makes it worth it.

There are so few articles about sports its ridiculous, they have what, a page for each sport, then maybe an article somewhere else. Its pathetic really.