Larry Legend screwed up

[SHAQATTACK]

Paul George has yet to show me he can put a team on his back, be the leader , rally his team ,

He is not James , Kobe, Pierce, MJ , calibre player in my mind .

He has a long way to go ,  just as James did ,   If he ever is going to be the great.

He s a star , but I'm not any where ready to call him a super star.

They can't beat the great teams in a series without Hibbert controlling the paint ,  getting 15 or 20 board  game     Unless Hibbert steps up aLOT ....they are probably finished.

Turner was a bad addition

Scola is done.   What a bust trade for Larry .....he gave up a much better player to get an old worn out one.

Team looks defeated

That's where the coach has failed....his job to right the ship

[Cman]

This series is not over. In fact, when Indiana wins the next game they will again have home court advantage.

Indiana in 7 games.

BUMP.

Larry>Morey

[fitzhickey]

Paul George has yet to show me he can put a team on his back, be the leader , rally his team ,

He is not James , Kobe, Pierce, MJ , calibre player in my mind .

He has a long way to go ,  just as James did ,   If he ever is going to be the great.

He s a star , but I'm not any where ready to call him a super star.

They can't beat the great teams in a series without Hibbert controlling the paint ,  getting 15 or 20 board  game     Unless Hibbert steps up aLOT ....they are probably finished.

Turner was a bad addition

Scola is done.   What a bust trade for Larry .....he gave up a much better player to get an old worn out one.

Team looks defeated

That's where the coach has failed....his job to right the ship

George had an awesome game 7. an awesome first series overall.

Hibbert has become a big chunk of nothing. He is stinking it up immensely.

[D.o.s.]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

We'll always have the Pistons.

[Mr October]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

We'll always have the Pistons.

Although Sheed was an enigma, he was probably the 5th most talented big man in the NBA that season, particularly because he was a skilled weapon on both ends of the floor. Having a big with superstar talent helps one's title chances.

Sheed was a former #4 pick. Billups was a former #3 pick. Lottery talent is almost always needed on a title team.

[Moranis]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

We'll always have the Pistons.

Although Sheed was an enigma, he was probably the 5th most talented big man in the NBA that season, particularly because he was a skilled weapon on both ends of the floor. Having a big with superstar talent helps one's title chances.

Sheed was a former #4 pick. Billups was a former #3 pick. Lottery talent is almost always needed on a title team.

Hamilton was a 7th pick.  Hunter was the 10th pick.  Williamson was the 13th pick.  In other words, 5 guys in their playoff top 7 (by minutes) were lottery picks.

[BballTim]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

  This year's team, although last year's team probably qualifies.

[SHAQATTACK]

Paul George has yet to show me he can put a team on his back, be the leader , rally his team ,



Hibbert has become a big chunk of nothing. He is stinking it up immensely.

Something is really really wrong with Roy Hibbert.  Totally unlike him.    I think it goes further than basketball.   He is acting totally dis interested ......

Meaning he has home issues ...something is preoccupied his mind .

He is not focused at all.

Girlfriend or wife issues 

[BballTim]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

We'll always have the Pistons.

Although Sheed was an enigma, he was probably the 5th most talented big man in the NBA that season, particularly because he was a skilled weapon on both ends of the floor. Having a big with superstar talent helps one's title chances.

Sheed was a former #4 pick. Billups was a former #3 pick. Lottery talent is almost always needed on a title team.

  Billups was on at least his 5th team by then. Sheed had talent and skills but was something of an underperformer.

[BballTim]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

We'll always have the Pistons.

Although Sheed was an enigma, he was probably the 5th most talented big man in the NBA that season, particularly because he was a skilled weapon on both ends of the floor. Having a big with superstar talent helps one's title chances.

Sheed was a former #4 pick. Billups was a former #3 pick. Lottery talent is almost always needed on a title team.

Hamilton was a 7th pick.  Hunter was the 10th pick.  Williamson was the 13th pick.  In other words, 5 guys in their playoff top 7 (by minutes) were lottery picks.

  The shine really goes off the term "lottery pick" when you're listing Hunter and Williamson on that team. We had Green, Olynyk, Bayless and Humphries on our team last year, they were all lottery picks.

[moiso]

Yeah, some of the worst teams have the most "lottery talent."  I think the position a player is drafted is pretty irrelevant.

[Mr October]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

We'll always have the Pistons.

Although Sheed was an enigma, he was probably the 5th most talented big man in the NBA that season, particularly because he was a skilled weapon on both ends of the floor. Having a big with superstar talent helps one's title chances.

Sheed was a former #4 pick. Billups was a former #3 pick. Lottery talent is almost always needed on a title team.

  Billups was on at least his 5th team by then. Sheed had talent and skills but was something of an underperformer.

The Pistons didn't have a typical year in year out All NBA player, and top 5 in the league performer, but they still had serious talent. The Pacers are not as good as those Pistons as a team and as individuals.

Billups was a late bloomer, and Sheed had a serious on and off switch. But those two still had serious talent, worthy of two top 5 picks.

Talent wins in the NBA. I can't think of a champion who didn't have at least 1 top 5 pick on it, and a few more lottery picks in general.

The Pacers do not belong in the conversation with the 2004 Detroit Pistons. Or the 2005 Pistons, or 2006 Pistons, etc.

[D.o.s.]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

We'll always have the Pistons.

Although Sheed was an enigma, he was probably the 5th most talented big man in the NBA that season, particularly because he was a skilled weapon on both ends of the floor. Having a big with superstar talent helps one's title chances.

Sheed was a former #4 pick. Billups was a former #3 pick. Lottery talent is almost always needed on a title team.

  Billups was on at least his 5th team by then. Sheed had talent and skills but was something of an underperformer.

The Pistons didn't have a typical year in year out All NBA player, and top 5 in the league performer, but they still had serious talent. The Pacers are not as good as those Pistons as a team and as individuals.

Billups was a late bloomer, and Sheed had a serious on and off switch. But those two still had serious talent, worthy of two top 5 picks.

Talent wins in the NBA. I can't think of a champion who didn't have at least 1 top 5 pick on it, and a few more lottery picks in general.

The Pacers do not belong in the conversation with the 2004 Detroit Pistons. Or the 2005 Pistons, or 2006 Pistons, etc.

Totally agree -- in fact, I'm one of the more vocal sheed fans on this board, I think -- but LB33's comment was about "superstar" players, not just lottery picks.

[SHAQATTACK]

If Hibbert doesn't get his head on right , step up and give 20 and 20 games or close......the Pacers can not or dream of beating the Heat , Trailblazers or Spurs.....

Hibbert is playing about like Fab Melo .....

How's that for an elbow drop on your ego.

[Mr October]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

We'll always have the Pistons.

Although Sheed was an enigma, he was probably the 5th most talented big man in the NBA that season, particularly because he was a skilled weapon on both ends of the floor. Having a big with superstar talent helps one's title chances.

Sheed was a former #4 pick. Billups was a former #3 pick. Lottery talent is almost always needed on a title team.

  Billups was on at least his 5th team by then. Sheed had talent and skills but was something of an underperformer.

The Pistons didn't have a typical year in year out All NBA player, and top 5 in the league performer, but they still had serious talent. The Pacers are not as good as those Pistons as a team and as individuals.

Billups was a late bloomer, and Sheed had a serious on and off switch. But those two still had serious talent, worthy of two top 5 picks.

Talent wins in the NBA. I can't think of a champion who didn't have at least 1 top 5 pick on it, and a few more lottery picks in general.

The Pacers do not belong in the conversation with the 2004 Detroit Pistons. Or the 2005 Pistons, or 2006 Pistons, etc.

Totally agree -- in fact, I'm one of the more vocal sheed fans on this board, I think -- but LB33's comment was about "superstar" players, not just lottery picks.

True enough. Although Sheed had superstar talent, he wasn't an every game superstar. Thus his absence from all nba squads and MVP consideration.

TP for you. My point in replying is that the Pistons still had much better talent than the Pacers.

This Pacers team might not be much better than other 1 hit conference finals wonders like the Ray Allen Bucks, Pierce/Walker Celtics, etc.