How good is Paul George?

[8305]

I'm going to approach this from another angle because sometimes I totally agree with what you say.

1. The draft is where it all starts. Its key at the beginning of a rebuild and continues to be important throughout the rest of a cycle.
2. The Pacers were probably never a contender. In 1988 they had a team that could have contended in a time where Jordan wasn't dominant but that was a time similar to now where everyone will have to wait for Chicago/Miami to return to the pack. There was probably enough talent on the 2004 team to contend but not when that talent includes too many head cases. Well we all know how that ended.
3. The Pacers have had stretches of poor management decisions1977-1985 and the Bird/Walsh years.

Right now the Pacers are in a place pretty similar to where they were in the early 1990's. A pretty nice run followed. This was done without the benefit of a top five talent. As an organization you have very little control over the acquisition that level talent. Building strategy around the acquistion of super star talent has blown up on more teams than have actually executed it.

[jman2585]

Smits was drafted 2nd. He was one of the best players on your team. As I just explained, Mark Jackson, Mullins/Dampier & Jalen Rose were all the product of a top 5 pick being gradually rolled over into other assets until it became those 3 guys. Then there were guys on your team who were not "top 5" but who were lotto picks, or obtained with lotto picks. Reggie Miller was a lotto pick, Davis and Croshere were picked in what would be lotto pick range today, McKey was a top 10 pick who you got by trading a top 10 pick. The claim you didn't build through the draft is false, even if we add the qualifier of not having had "top 5 talent". And you spent literally a decade to become even a slightly winning team, before slowly edging your way up to faux contender. I mean, why should teams want to emulate that sort of a model. It just looks terrible compared to say what OKC have done (or to what numerous other teams who rebuilt with draft assets did).

[Carmelofan]

This guy is the same age as me!!!!!!!!!! Time flies..

[8305]

Smits was drafted 2nd. He was one of the best players on your team. As I just explained, Mark Jackson, Mullins/Dampier & Jalen Rose were all the product of a top 5 pick being gradually rolled over into other assets until it became those 3 guys. Then there were guys on your team who were not "top 5" but who were lotto picks, or obtained with lotto picks. Reggie Miller was a lotto pick, Davis and Croshere were picked in what would be lotto pick range today, McKey was a top 10 pick who you got by trading a top 10 pick. The claim you didn't build through the draft is false, even if we add the qualifier of not having had "top 5 talent". And you spent literally a decade to become even a slightly winning team, before slowly edging your way up to faux contender. I mean, why should teams want to emulate that sort of a model. It just looks terrible compared to say what OKC have done (or to what numerous other teams who rebuilt with draft assets did).

When I referred to top 5 talent I'm meaning top five in the league not a top 5 draft pick. The rare instances when the Pacers had draft picks in the top five supports my contention that very high draft picks don't always deliver francchise changing talent. Rick Smits, nice player but hardly franchise changing.

I think you are confusing me with other Pacer posters who might have implied that Indiana somehow did something monumental in assembling this their current team. Their rebuild took place during a time they were waiting for bad contracts to expire so the picks weren't that high. The success they are enjoying right now is better than average. Beyond that no one knows.

[daschysta]

Smits was drafted 2nd. He was one of the best players on your team. As I just explained, Mark Jackson, Mullins/Dampier & Jalen Rose were all the product of a top 5 pick being gradually rolled over into other assets until it became those 3 guys. Then there were guys on your team who were not "top 5" but who were lotto picks, or obtained with lotto picks. Reggie Miller was a lotto pick, Davis and Croshere were picked in what would be lotto pick range today, McKey was a top 10 pick who you got by trading a top 10 pick. The claim you didn't build through the draft is false, even if we add the qualifier of not having had "top 5 talent". And you spent literally a decade to become even a slightly winning team, before slowly edging your way up to faux contender. I mean, why should teams want to emulate that sort of a model. It just looks terrible compared to say what OKC have done (or to what numerous other teams who rebuilt with draft assets did).

Making the finals, taking the Jordan Bulls to 7 and having the best record in the NBA and title favorites before Artest went nuts in Detroit were not "faux contenders". You can't just throw out OKC while ignoring the other teams that have floundered around in the top of the draft and still manage to suck year after year.

[therealbig3]

Very good, although a little overrated. He's not at the level that some people think he is just yet. But his ceiling is tremendous. I mentioned this on the GB: he's got all the tools and talent to be the next Scottie Pippen. Similar athlete, already elite defensively, already elite on the glass (for his position) and unlike Pippen, he's an elite outside shooter. Just needs to add some diversity to his game (it seems that his entire offensive game in terms of creating for himself at this point is to shoot 3s...he's very good at it, but it's not a reliable source of offense). He's got legit size to develop a really solid post game, good ball handler, seems to be an unselfish player. Really, sky's the limit.

He's one of my favorite young players in the league right now, along with Steph Curry.

[therealbig3]

BTW, yeah I also think George is best suited for being a 2nd option. In fact, him and Steph Curry would be awesome together.

[jman2585]

My initial reply was lost, so allow me to summarise:
1) Even if the 1998 Pacers were contenders, it is irrelevant as they built their team via lottery assets (as explained)
2) The 2004 Pacers were built similarly, rolling over the assets you'd rolled over from earlier. In order to do this, you need to already be a contender, so you can move your valuable assets for younger valuable assets (and you need alot of luck). Again, this doesn't help the argument the teams should build this way.
3) The 98 Pacers were not really contenders. They went to 7 against the Bulls, but then so did the Hawks against the 2008 Celtics. Alot of times a younger, hungrier team pushes the better team and makes them work for it, then the better team gets serious and wins. That's what happened in 98, and SRS backs it up (the Pacers were 4th, and even that's a little generous), they were not going to beat the Bulls, they were not going to win the title if the Bulls didn't exist... and we saw that the very next year, and the year after, when they still didn't win the title. I think the 2004 Pacers were closer to being a title chance, but still doubt they'd have won. Not that it really helps the argument here... at least not your side.
4) The OKC Thunder are totally different. They were clearly the 2nd best team last year, the Pacers never were. They also have a young, young team who has many chances to win a title. The Thunder were also a team who would have won a title in many years, their team was definitely legit contender/title team, for heaven's sake they had a franchise player coming off their bench (who would still be coming off their bench now, if he was on the team). The Pacers had a few years where they tried, then had to blow their team up in over to try and rollover assets, and speed up the reload.

[lorak]

When asked about who is DPOTY Vogel said: it's close (between Hibbert and Paul), but George:

I realize this is an unfair question almost, but if you had to pick one of your players to nominate for Defensive Player of the Year — and only one — do you pick Paul George or Roy Hibbert?

Paul, but it’s very close to even.

I thought you’d say Roy. Why Paul?

Him just being able to guard just about every position. But Roy has been dominant, too. He’s the best rim protector in the game, according to most numbers I’ve seen. He’s a candidate, too.

[lukekarts]

I assumed Vogel would sit on the fence. I agree with his points. Though from the numbers I've seen, isn't Sanders the best rim protecter??

[The Infamous1]

I remember some said he was better then Melo

[lorak]

I assumed Vogel would sit on the fence. I agree with his points. Though from the numbers I've seen, isn't Sanders the best rim protecter??

Depends on what numbers. Sanders as no 1 rim protector is based on limited sample (only 15 teams have that cameras tracking system). Besides criterion in that study was "defender within 5 feet of shot attempt", so that's only small part of overall rim protection. And for example when "defender was within 5 feet from the BASKET" then Hibbert is as no 1 - and opponents shot much less vs Hibbert than vs Sanders so it's another Roy's advantage, because opponents simply don't want attack the basket when he's on the floor.

[DJ SKY]

He exceeded my expectation going in draft thought hed be a huge bust..i see him as rudy gay lvl w/ better defense. Good 2nd option great 3rd option.

[rockmanslim]

pretty good player, but not a 1st option. doesn't have the quickness, handles, or court vision to be The Guy.

rich man's 3 & D guy.

[DNice68]

pretty good player, but not a 1st option. doesn't have the quickness, handles, or court vision to be The Guy.

rich man's 3 & D guy.

I agree though he is a good shooter and has great leaping ability.

[MeloMIracle]

slightly better shooting Andre Igoudala prime, that is his ceiling.

[SuperCoolMayo]

I don't see how Paul George is rated just right, Most people would take him over Carmelo who is a top 10 player