RealGM

What was it and was it improved?

Point guard. And slightly. We got Watson, but I still have to see Hill run an effective offense the entire season before I can fully beieve in him and his contract.

Our whole bench was our biggest weakness

I think it was the bench; Plenty of ineffective play and many different times of let down the last two seasons. Many times they lost leads and or momentum.

our biggest weakness was backup point guard. George did fine as the starter. if you want the first unit weakness it was Lance's inexperience playing heavy minutes for the first time. we also had generally poor production from our second unit. a healthy Granger solves most problems but then we added Watson, Sloan, Scola, Copeland, and S Hill all of whom look like upgrades. we've turned the whole bench over with the exception of Mahinmi and OJ.

fair to say Hibbert had a slow start too but he fixed that himself as the year went on. if he starts this year as he ended last year, there's no problem there.

Jake0890 wrote:Point guard. And slightly. We got Watson, but I still have to see Hill run an effective offense the entire season before I can fully beieve in him and his contract.

Every expert said this. I agree.

EDIT: I think Hill can earn his money as a combo-guard though.

Strictly as a pg. his flaws are somewhat noticeable because the ball is consistently in his possession. However, playing off the ball and curling off screens he is a potent scorer. He offsets most weaknesses he has as a 1 because he really is a 2. Conversely, he offsets most weaknesses he has as a 2 because he can adequately play the 1.

Any improvement to our pg. play will rest squarely on GHill's shoulders. This will be his 3rd season as a pg. at any level. Can he acquire the necessary skills or mentality, or has he maxed out his potential as a pg.?

Hill was good enough to get you guys to the conference finals but he's not good enough to get you past Miami.. on his own accord.. this is where George simply just needs to get better facilitating the offense.

I thought it was the bench... I think towards the end the starters played too many minutes and they're high effort guys..and I think the bench gas been upgraded.

So far looks like a split on here... not enough input though.

Oh I agree that our bench sucked hind teet, but it did not affect us to the degree that it would most teams. Clearly Indiana would prefer to play their starters the whole game. Since the core is relatively young Vogel was able to dilute the bench's inefficiencies by playing his starters heavy minutes. In fact, no team relied on their starters more than us.

Now it appears our 2nd unit could disband and be a fringe playoff team.

GHil's mpg last season was probably greater than our top 2-3 bench players combined. Due to the position the expectations are that he'll run the offense efficiently. Our offense must not bog down and we must improve upon our assist totals.

Indiana was definitely lacking a good back-up PG last season. It's hard to re-watch DJ Augustin turn over the ball a dozen of times. He's a good point guard, he just did not fit the mold the Pacers are looking for. CJ Watson in my opinion would be a better fit as he knows the role of being a back-up PG, having played the said position for the whole of his career.

Another big issue was a post player off the bench. That was addressed in the Luis Scola trade. In the ECF, having a David West was a big advantage for the Pacers. Problem is when he sits, there is no one to take on his role in the offense, and the Pacers end up making isolation plays or worst, taking too many threes. Now we have Scola to take on the post game going, it would be like having two David Wests in the team.

ibraheim718 wrote:Hill was good enough to get you guys to the conference finals but he's not good enough to get you past Miami.. on his own accord..

huh? was Chalmers good enough to get the Heat by us on his own accord? George Hill may not be first team NBA or an MVP candidate but that does not make him a weakness. yes, he is still learning to play the point and is very a capable two guard but other than occasionally matching down against teams that play two small guards together he'll be at point again this year and that is not a problem.

Wizop wrote:George Hill may not be first team NBA or an MVP candidate but that does not make him a weakness. yes, he is still learning to play the point and is very a capable two guard but other than occasionally matching down against teams that play two small guards together he'll be at point again this year and that is not a problem.

So much of the offense goes inside out that Hill needs to be a different kind of PG (dumping the ball and then running off screens, cutting the lane, being very active). He's filling the role well, and was getting better at it as the year progressed. I expect to see marked improvement this season as well.

Wizop wrote:

ibraheim718 wrote:Hill was good enough to get you guys to the conference finals but he's not good enough to get you past Miami.. on his own accord..

huh? was Chalmers good enough to get the Heat by us on his own accord? George Hill may not be first team NBA or an MVP candidate but that does not make him a weakness. yes, he is still learning to play the point and is very a capable two guard but other than occasionally matching down against teams that play two small guards together he'll be at point again this year and that is not a problem.

The difference is Chalmers didn't have to be relied on to handle the point guard duties... that job went to Lebron... whereas Paul George's ability to facilitate the offense isn't good enough yet to completely relieve Hill of what he can't do.. which is create... most notably penetrate and turn the corner in the PnR specifically against Miami.

ibraheim718 wrote:The difference is Chalmers didn't have to be relied on to handle the point guard duties... that job went to Lebron... whereas Paul George's ability to facilitate the offense isn't good enough yet to completely relieve Hill of what he can't do.. which is create... most notably penetrate and turn the corner in the PnR specifically against Miami.

that's just not our offense and we don't need a point guard who can run that offense. we have inside scorers in HIbbert and West and now Scola. we dump the ball into the post and let our guys work and when they are double teamed we kick the ball out and swing the ball around the arc to the open man who shoots from outside.

Wizop wrote:

ibraheim718 wrote:The difference is Chalmers didn't have to be relied on to handle the point guard duties... that job went to Lebron... whereas Paul George's ability to facilitate the offense isn't good enough yet to completely relieve Hill of what he can't do.. which is create... most notably penetrate and turn the corner in the PnR specifically against Miami.

that's just not our offense and we don't need a point guard who can run that offense. we have inside scorers in HIbbert and West and now Scola. we dump the ball into the post and let our guys work and when they are double teamed we kick the ball out and swing the ball around the arc to the open man who shoots from outside.

It's not your offense because you don't have anyone who can do it... every team regardless of what system they try and run needs to have someone who can penetrate.. and against Miami it's extremely important.. that's how Dallas beat them and it's where you guys fell short in the ECF.

But my point anyway was that the bench as a whole needed to be upgraded more than the PG position. I think you can get by with Hill starting... as long as PG continues to get better handling the ball and running the PnR which is probably going to happen.

Our biggest weakness was that our bench could not score. That seems to have improved dramatically.

Biggest issue was ineptness of the bench. We'd swap 'me in and give up a 10 point run in no time. It's been vastly improved

Augustine, Green, Young, Hansbrough, Ian, OJ, Plumlee, BHansbrough
Has become
Watson, Lance, Solo, Scola, Ian, Copeland, OJ, and Sloan

Every single spot is a marked upgrade over the previous year. It's wonderful.

One of 3 things.
1) Lack of star power
2) Lack of talent (compared to teams like Miami anyhow),
3) Lack of a 3rd triangle on O

Star power is not feasible to address, and lack of talent they haven't really addressed either. More bench depth is nice, but what they really need is another really talented up and coming all-star (like say Beal or Kawhi), not some bench guys. This probably also wasn't feasible. The last thing they could really use is someone who can create offense at the 2, and act as the primary ball initiator, so Hill doesn't need to do it as much. Someone like a rich mans Tyreke Evans (so prime Manu Ginobili). Again, I don't see how they can do that either. Pity.

So, essentially 29 teams in the league need to upgrade talent into at least 3 top players in he NBA like Miami?

We added talent. We filled most holes. Sure, we'd love a young can't miss guy, but what can we trade to get that? Roy Hibbert? Paul George?

I guess if you could just turn a role player like George Hill into a stud like Kawhi Leonard maybe you'd have a young can't miss guy.

It's fair to say all but a handful of teams need a massive (and unattainable talent upgrade). The Pacers are one of those, yeh. There's no shame in that.

is the object to win games or sell shoes and get your highlights on sports center?