8p9s Roundtable: The Paul George at Power Forward Experiment

Is Paul George at power forward a good idea?

Justin Ochoa: PG on the court is always a good idea. No matter what. There are good ideas, better ideas and best ideas though – and I don’t know if Paul George at the PF position is better or best. Taking your best player out of his natural position, or position he’s most comfortable in, is tightrope I wouldn’t want to walk if I were on the Pacers staff. In theory, this whole small-ball movement is a great idea with PG at the 4, but it also means he will have his hands full in the trenches with players who are just brutally bigger and stronger than he is. Sure, there are game plans and defensive schemes designed to resolve these specific issues, but you just never know how a team will execute. This question could honestly become its own blog post with in-depth analysis of the pros and cons, but for now I’m going to say that it’s technically not a bad idea.

Tim Donahue: Trying to play some small lineups, where Paul George is nominally the 4, is good enough idea to try it out during a transitional season. Trying to turn Paul George primarily into a 4, where he will be asked to fill the role filled by David West and Luis Scola over the last two season is not. To my mind, a huge portion of the heartburn surrounding this conversation is caused by a lack of clarity about what the actual plan is. Larry Bird seems all in, Paul George seems almost completely opposed, and Frank Vogel vacillates in the middle. As a result, everybody defines this question – and this discussion – in the way that best suits their pre-existing opinion.

Whitney Medworth: It might be … against teams that make sense … in situations where he isn’t guarding Anthony Davis. Ideally, I’d still like a stretch 4 that’s quick and allows PG to stay on the wing. I don’t think any of us really know how this is going to play out. His offensive output last night was promising but it was only a quarter of a preseason game in Detroit so I can’t really base too much off of that. Back when all of this talk started I never imaged PG starting at the 4. It’s still kind of hard to believe it’s actually happening.

Will Furr: I think testing PG at the 4 is a great idea. He obviously won’t be able to guard the Zach Randolph bruiser types, but I don’t think that’s the goal here; I think the goal is to get him in space against most of these “Stretch 4’s” who have gotten by with below average strength and quickness because they can shoot threes. This is following the LeBron/Carmelo example and exploiting a league trend. What he did to Ersan Ilyasova was probably a crime.

Jon Washburn: All things considered, yes. Offensively, it’s a no-brainer, and has already shown dividends (albeit preseason dividends) so far this year. The truth is that the Pacers are no longer a championship contender, but this change gives them the best hope at a) being interesting and b) reaching their ceiling as a team. Could it wind up backfiring? Probably. I think it’s worth the risk.

Next: Are Paul George's comments troubling?