Paul George has impressed so far in three preseason games but that doesn’t mean everything is perfect in the Indiana Pacers organization.
Paul George doesn’t seem comfortable playing the power forward position despite his offensive success. It is a work in progress for Frank Vogel and Larry Bird to convince PG this is the best plan for the team, but it doesn’t seem like any of them are on the same page right now.
We gather the 8 Points, 9 Seconds staff together to answer a few questions about the Paul George at power forward experiment.
Next: Is PG at 4 a good idea?
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?
How troubling are Paul George’s comments about not wanting to play the 4?
Ochoa: I wouldn’t say that the comments are troubling. In a way, Paul George’s comments are encouraging. A lot of times, pros who are unhappy in their situation – no matter the sport or level of play – do not speak up. They keep it bottled up and later explode, or even worse, they speak up in a completely unprofessional manner. I think Paul is handling it well. This shows his strong relationship with the Pacers staff and media, in my opinion. I don’t think anyone is offended, or surprised, by PG’s expressions of dissatisfaction. I can’t blame the guy. Although he played in a limited capacity last season, he’s still very fresh off of a gruesome leg injury. He’s probably never going to feel 100% comfortable pushing his right leg to the limits. On top of that stress, he’s also being forced to learn a new position that he has no interest in. I think everything will cool off, Paul will be happy in whatever role he plays and the Pacers will have a great bounce back year.
Donahue: Hard to tell. The comments themselves are fair. The things that are troubling about them are the surrounding conditions. It’s worrisome that they came after only 4 days of training camp and 1 preseason game. It’s worrisome that they imply some very basic communication issues among the three most important men in the organization – PG, Bird, and Vogel. Some of this is just change management being played out in public, but they do indicate that the Pacers aren’t where they need to be in approaching this change.
Medworth: I don’t always understand how PG’s thought process works. Part of me thinks he was literally just talking to the media like he’d talk to his closest friend. Part of me thinks he was throwing it all under the bus. I know one thing though, I don’t want potentially the greatest Pacer of all time upset about playing basketball. That is not good. The fact that he came out on fire last night is promising and that maybe his comments weren’t deep seeded and long lasting.
Will Furr: They’re more troubling as a long term thing than they are for this season. My hope is that they’re coming from a guy who’s a bit nervous coming off a terrible injury and missing the long term picture, but they come off a bit combative and immature. Here’s hoping I’m reading too much into them.
Jon Washburn: Not troubling at all. Fans always want different things out of their star players. Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan would probably be praised for making these same comments, what with their “stubborn, warrior-like approach to winning” and all those cliches. Players are humans. Would it maybe be more desirable for George to toe the company line in public a little better? Perhaps. But look at his comments again. He hasn’t put anybody “on blast.” He sounds like a thoughtful player that is somewhat resistant to a career-altering change. Seems completely rational to me.
Next: Is Frank Vogel committed to small ball?
Do you think Frank Vogel is committed to small ball?
Ochoa: If Paul isn’t committed to small ball, neither is Vogel. I don’t know where Larry Bird comes into play with this equation, but the Pacers will absolutely NOT go 82 games continuously pissing Paul George off. This should, and will be, addressed before the regular season. Whatever solution they come up with will have to please our franchise player. At the end of the day, PG is the heart and soul of the Indiana Pacers organization. He’s the type of player any franchise would bend over backwards for — Pacers included.
Donahue: Frank Vogel is committed to going smaller. He’s farther down that road than George, but he hasn’t caught up to Bird. Arguably, he has the most pragmatic, sensible position, but it is also the most problematic. Instead of seeming measured, it comes across as mixed signals – allowing Bird and PG each to interpret his comments as encouragement for their positions on the poles.
Medworth: I think Vogel is committed to doing what his boss says, like most of us. Smashsmouth basketball is what Vogel does best. No one can deny he knows how to coach a top-tier defense. I think he’s giving this a shot just like every employee does when the boss gives them an assignment.
Will Furr: I’m not sure Vogel was ever committed to the big, lumbering team the Pacers had before; Vogel is committed to winning and being positive. It will be a lot of work for him, and he’ll have to draw some new things up, but I think Vogel will actually love small ball, and will drive the Pacers to give it a 100% effort.
Jon Washburn: I don’t think he is at this moment, but Bird has probably forced his hand. Vogel has adjusted “on the fly” during his career more than you might think. Transitioning away from Danny Granger was difficult, but ultimately crucial in Indiana’s success. I think Vogel is too smart and loves winning too much to really object to small ball for long.
Next: Will PG start at the 4 on opening night?
Will Paul George start at power forward on opening night?
Ochoa: Paul George will start at the 3 on opening night. He will play the 4 at some points during the game. Paul will score 26 points, grab 9 boards and rack up 5 assists. The Pacers will win by 12.
Donahue: Probably, though I don’t necessarily agree that he should. I think PG needs to give some minutes as the “4” in small lineups. This roster only has about 80-85 minutes worth of bigs, and you need to fill 96. However, I think the transition will be hard, and making PG the starter adds both mental and physical difficulty to the task. Everyone should expect rough spots early, but I think they could be amplified if PG is learning primarily against opposing starters.
Medworth: Probably, yes. This all got accelerated because David West bailed. The Pacers don’t have someone they’d like to play at the 4 right now so they’re, at least a little bit, forcing this issue. I don’t think they’ll know enough about “small ball” to cancel the plan by October 28th.
Will Furr: Yes.
Jon Washburn: Yes. That will represent Indiana’s best lineup unless there are injuries.
Next: Will this hurt the relationship between PG and the Indiana Pacers
Will this positional disagreement between star and franchise cause lasting problems all season?
Ochoa: If this causes an ongoing issues, the Pacers could be in real trouble. I don’t think this will be a long lasting conversation though. One way or another, Paul will end this getting what he wants. You never know, he may end up liking this position change and all of this will become old news. Playing the 4 is not exactly hurting his game, so he could come around and see things their way. Or, he could continue to resist. Like I said, either way, Paul will not end this with a sour taste in his mouth.
Donahue: Maybe. There’s some fence-mending to do here, but the important thing to remember is that everybody is trying to do and say what they think is the right thing for the franchise. It will largely depend on how Paul and the teamperform. If they’re competitive and Paul is having success, then they’ll get past this relatively easily. If they struggle— or if PG insists on pulling the chute without giving it time to develop— then it’s far more likely to create deeper problems.
Medworth: This one is pretty simple. Wins keep everyone happy, losses get everyone upset. If this team loses a lot of games early (and they very well could), it could be a big mental hurdle.
Will Furr: That strongly depends on 1 thing – if it works. If PG starts at the 4, gets killed on the glass, and can’t defend 4’s, I think it causes major issues. PG might become sulk-y about it, and the team’s going to follow his lead. For better or worse, David West is gone — this is PG’s team, through and through. If it works at the beginning for PG — even if we’re losing – I don’t think it will be an issue at all.
Jon Washburn: There might be lasting problems all season, and those problems might correlate to the small ball shift, but I don’t believe that correlation will equal causation.
Losing will be the root of any and all problems that the Pacers go through this year. Expect the small ball issue to be cited, but don’t believe it to actually be the issue.