Well the next five games look to be set up for Brandon to go on a little bit of a run. San Antonio should be the only game that gives him a challenge so we’ll see how he does in that one. I know I’ve been harsh on Brandon but nothing would make me happier than to be wrong about this.

I think the WOW story for the most part just misses the point. I don’t think Broussard’s goal had anything to do with comparing the two. It felt like he wrote an article about how well Granger is playing and then needed some sort of lead-in/attention grabbing headline. He really doesn’t try to say much about how the two players compare. Obviously we all know that Kobe is several notches above Granger and the goal of the ESPN article was just to show that Granger is surprisingly good and still has room to grow.

Is that it points out numerous times that Granger’s output is below average at PF. The study does a great job of punishing Granger solely based on the fact he’s not a very good PF, which isn’t his position. I’m no expert on the numbers WOW pulls out, but I imagine Kobe is a pretty below average PF as well.

I’m going to get a little winded from here discussing my side of the issue and how I feel about the myths surrounding Danny Granger, so I’m sorry if I flood things.

Also, it it doesn’t really take into account the fact Danny doesn’t have a whole lot to help him. How exactly is it Danny is an “average” player when he drops 35 points and pulls down 10 boards in his first start back from a long injury and his team is beaten against Portland entirely because not a single player showed up for that game except Granger?

I think there are cases where even the best stat analysis doesn’t mean as much as they’re hyped to be, and I think this is one of the cases. Danny has won big games for this team all season. When a player is there at the end of games as often as Granger has been to either get his team the go-ahead bucket or simply win it at the buzzer, I think it becomes more of a case that Danny’s supporting cast may be worse than even we think it is.

Granger doesn’t have a complete game. I noted this when discussing Granger earlier this year as an All-Star candidate. One thing he’s missing that guys like Kobe has is the ability to make his team better. I didn’t see much of that all from him this year, but I’m actually very excited to see what he does to improve his game for next year. I love the mention in the article of him being a point forward and running the offense like LeBron does. That would be tremendous.

My favorite “reply” in the ESPN article was someone saying, “You know why Kobe is better? 3 rings, a gold medal, and an MVP.” Because we all know the situations are so similar to what Kobe had coming into the league. Haha.

The Broussard article puts Granger in the third tier of swingmen. I’m not crazy to think he’s actually already in the second am I? Or at the very least, leading the third tier. I think he’s a better player right now than the ones mentioned in the third tier.

I’ve always felt that Granger would be a great Pippen to a Jordan, but I’m getting to the mind that maybe being Pippen is enough. It’s easy to forget that Scottie was named one of the 50 Greatest Players, and would’ve had one of the great careers in the NBA without Mike. And I’ve always said to the whole “Granger can’t be a #1 on a great team” was kind of stupid because while he’s not a prototypical franchise player, Reggie Miller was far from being a prototypical franchise player, and we had plenty of success with him at the helm.

It’s always about the team and talent you can fill around a hard working guy like Danny. That’s why this little Rush Renaissance is so exciting. I have no problems at all with going forward with Danny Granger as long as we can get the right talent in blue and gold to make it happen.