There was optimism here at 8 Points, 9 Seconds when the season began. Frank Vogel was going to make this team into the idea in Larry Bird’s head and the Indiana Pacers were going to win a few games behind a resurgent Paul George.
That is not what happened.
Too many turnovers and three losses later the attitudes around the team and the nation have changed a bit as the Pacers have struggled to play four solid quarters of basketball.
The 8 Points, 9 Seconds roundtable assembles once again when their hands inching towards the panic button.
Next: Time to panic?
How much should fans be panicking right now about this team?
Jeremy Comstock: Not at all. With 50% roster turnover and a complete overhaul on both offense and defense, no one could reasonably expect a fast start. Panic Rating: 3 (Scale of 1-10).
Justin Ochoa: I’ve got the panic meter set at a 4 right now. The 0-3 start is pretty embarrassing, but doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things. In all pro sports, the early portion of the season is not an accurate representation of what the future holds for a team. This is especially true in the NBA. Look at the ’99 Spurs and ’91 Bulls – both teams were well under .500 after 10 games and went on to win it all. I don’t think the Pacers are on the same level as those teams, but I think that they’re way better than the Pacers we’ve seen in the first 3 games. The Pacers have a new roster and a new game plan, by Thanksgiving we’ll know just how good this team will be. No need to panic, yet. Panic Rating: 4
Will Furr: Fans should be panicking a bit — not because the team can’t fix the issues, or because they’re lacking in talent, but because a huge bulk of these are mental errors/laziness. Players have to WANT to fix these things. Panic Rating: 4
More from 8 Points, 9 Seconds
- 2 Studs, 1 dud from gut-wrenching Indiana Pacers loss to Charlotte Hornets
- Handing out early-season grades for Pacers’ Bruce Brown, Obi Toppin
- 3 positives, 2 negatives in Pacers In-Season Tournament win vs. Cavaliers
- 2 positives, 3 negatives from first week of Indiana Pacers basketball
- Should Isaiah Jackson’s days with Indiana Pacers be numbered?
Jon LaFollette: Why is losing to three playoff-caliber teams with a stronger identity than the Pacers a reason to panic? More like what was expected.
“A team with at least five new rotation players that didn’t play last year is trying to implement a new style and started the season losing consecutive games to three likely playoff teams. Panic Rating: 3
Jon Washburn: I am unsurprised with the 0-3 start. With that said, the second half was one of the worst halves of basketball I’ve seen since the Jim O’Brien era. This includes “The Struggle” and last year’s injury-plagued atrocity. Concern exists, but it’s not at def-con levels. Yet. Panic Rating: 5
Dylan Hughes: Not much. I won’t say not at all, because there are things to fix, but don’t freak out. We expected this, or something like this, at least. There is a lot of new personnel on this team and it’s going to take some time to gel and figure out which lineups work best with this new offense. I’m not going to start worrying until 10 or 15 more games. Panic Rating: 3
Next: Time to scrap small ball?
Does an 0-3 start mean that Frank Vogel should consider scrapping the small ball experiment?
Comstock: No. If Jordan Hill and Lavoy Allen play 40 minutes a game with him was only going to get worse. Vogel should only scrap small ball if Bird trades for a power forward who should better than C.J. Miles.
Ochoa: I wouldn’t scrap it if I was Vogel, and I don’t think he’ll scrap it. If this is the direction the Pacers organization wants to go, I don’t think they’ll scrap it at all. I think the Pacers have committed to a style of basketball that they believe in. They spent money on this style of play. They drafted to support this style of play. I believe the experiment is no longer an experiment. At this point, this is the game plan and they will find a way to make it work.
Furr: No; 3 games is not enough to tell anything, especially not when 2 of those 3 games were against strong teams from the Western conference with big front lines.
LaFollette: No. It’s been three games after a summer full of roster turnover and a new style of play. It’s a learning process. Let’s not talk about scrapping small ball until after New Years and the team looks to be on the fritz.
Washburn: Absolutely not. Look at the roster. Are there any better options? Now, perhaps you could argue (although I wouldn’t and it’s WAY too early) that Bird was wrong for pushing the Pacers in this direction. But Vogel is trying to make the most out of the roster he has and the second half Utah catastrophe notwithstanding, Indiana has shown some good qualities that can be built upon. When should it be scrapped? I don’t know. If Indiana starts 0-10 and loses to Philly, then I suppose you could revisit this question.
Hughes: Scrapping small ball means Jordan Hill plays more often than with small ball, and I don’t know what I think about that. I would say between Games 15-20 is when Vogel should re-asses small ball if things don’t change.
Next: Why are you so sad?
What has been the most discouraging part of the 0-3 start?
Comstock: The inconsistency of effort. It’s easy to forgive sloppy play from guys who are just learning to play together, but this team has gone through some inexplicably bad stretches where they seemay to give up.
Ochoa: It’s discouraging that the Pacers should be, at the very least, 2-1. The losses to the Raptors and Grizzlies were very winnable. Both games, the Pacers blew leads and failed to finish strong because they got lazy and complacent. The Pacers can’t control the refs, the spin of the ball on the rim or the way a lose ball bounces, but they absolutely can control effort and grit. Someone needs to step up and bring the intangibles that David West brought, which is toughness, effort and heart. I haven’t seen it at all this season.
Furr: The effort. It’s been a polar opposite look from last year’s super injured squad. Those guys were fun to root for; they played their asses off, gave 100% effort at all times, and just were lacking on the talent end. This season is a matter of very talented players doing dumb/lazy things with the ball, and it’s much more painful to observe.
LaFollette: Ian Mahinmi’s lackluster rim protection. He limited opponents to around 45 percent at the rim last season. In three games, he’s allowing 60 percent on 8 attempts per game.
Washburn: Paul George, after looking great for that majority of the preseason, has looked lost offensively. His stats have been ok, but it’s clear that he’s still trying to figure out his place on this team.
It’s important to remember, though, that not only is PG trying to get back from an injury, but he’s also trying to adjust to being the go-to guy on offense. George was tremendous in 2013-14, but he wasn’t the focal point of the offense. David West is no longer here to run the high pick and roll with, or to dump it into when the Pacers NEED a bucket. George no longer has the luxury to “play off” of his teammates. He’s “the guy” now. He hasn’t been ready. Hopefully, he will get there sooner rather than later.
Hughes: The offense has been bad and the defense hasn’t been good enough to save them. It’s not like the olden days when the Pacers could score 85 points and win the game. The faster pace will mean more turnovers, and I understand that, but they could take care of the ball a little bit better.
Next: PG and Monta just need to make their shots, right?
Will this team be fine as soon as Paul George and Monta Ellis start making shots?
Comstock: On offense, yes. They will need to learn to consistently apply themselves on defense even when shots aren’t falling.
Ochoa: This team will be fine when Paul George starts knocking down more shots. Sure, it’d be nice to have both players on point, but I think PG’s scoring is more imperative to the team’s success than Monta’s. From what I’ve seen from Monta, he can create more impactful non-scoring threats on his own than PG can because of his feisty on-ball defense, ability to create his own shot and/or dish it [to George Hill] for the corner 3. This team will go as Paul George goes.
Furr: That would certainly help. I think they’ll be fine when those 2 things happen AND George Hill stops averaging 4.7 turnovers per game. Hard to win when your point of attack costs you 5 possessions per game.
LaFollette: The defense won’t, But the offense certainly could use better production from those two for reasons that are pretty obvious.
Washburn: There are still questions to be answered defensively and on the front line, but improved play from these two guys will dramatically help. Put simply, had only one of them played better in each of the first three games, the Pacers might very well be 2-1 right now.
I think it would behoove the Pacers to involve both together as much as possible. Down the stretch in Toronto, the Monta/PG pick and roll looked nigh unguardable, yet Indiana has mostly abandoned it since. Vogel should call their number early and often next game.
Hughes: I think they will be better off. I’m not sure how good Monta can be with George Hill playing with him. Hill has played off the ball a lot (that corner three is freaking money) but he has also been the Aggressive George Hill we have always wanted. But of course I have seen people call him a ball hog because we have Monta now and he needs the ball. WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE WANT!?!
Next: Will the defense be bad all year?
Will the defense be this bad all year?
Comstock: No. It will continue to look different than it did in the past. It will be more deflection based. On the whole i think it will improve but probably never be great.
Ochoa: The defense will not be what it used to be, but it won’t suck as bad as it has in the 0-3 start. Myles Turner can protect the paint as well as anyone, and we’ve known Mahinmi can protect the paint for years now. The Pacers have more solid perimeter defenders than usual, so in theory, this defense should improve from years past. I think the Pacers will finish as a top 12 defensive team, but maybe not quite, elite level.
Furr: The defense will struggle, but when the Pacers clean up the turnover issue, I think the defense will look much better.
LaFollette: Aside from PG and George Hill, no one on the roster is a proven defensive player against starting talent. Don’t know how much those two can do by themselves. Perhaps plugging in Myles Turner for Ian would make things better? The rookie is allowing opponents to shoot 44 percent at the rim on 9 attempts per game.
Washburn: I don’t think so. They’ve shown, in spurts, that they can be very good defensively. However, I’m not sure the same lineups will be the long term solution. Jordan Hill has never been part of a good defensive unit, and it’s unlikely to change this year. Also, Paul George needs to show that he can still be a lockdown defender with his increased offensive role. He hasn’t been bad this season, but he also hasn’t been near the All-NBA Defense level he was at in 2014.
Hughes: I don’t think so, especially if Myles Turner starts. Ian can block shots but his 106.9 defensive rating at the start worries me. Turner is sitting at 102, with a 103.5 rating on the offensive side. Ian is at 91.4 on offense. I have trouble believing a starting lineup consisting of George Hill, Paul George and Myles Turner with Vogel as the head coach is THAT bad on defense.