Most people say you need two or three star players to win a Championship in the NBA today. While I can't disagree with that, I do question if the Indiana Pacers might be a better team without a superstar.
It's highly unlikely that an elite player would ever consider signing with the Pacers, and they know that.
What they have done with this team, though, is made it to where they might not need one to have success. Do the Pacers even have one player that stands out as the best on the team? In my opinion, no. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily.
Consider this: When LeBron James was in Cleveland, who was going to have the ball in crunch time? When Kobe was alone in Los Angeles, who was taking the final shot? Same for Carmelo in his days in Denver.
Now look at Indiana's situation from an opposing team's perspective.
Indiana has the ball in a tie game with 10 seconds left. What are you telling your team during the timeout? Who is going to make the play for Indiana, and more importantly, how are you going to plan to stop them?
Could it be George Hill, Paul George, Danny Granger, David West or Roy Hibbert? The answer, ...
Read Full Article at Bleacher Report - NBA
Article written by Chad Smith
Are the Indiana Pacers Better off Without a Star Player?
September 1st, 2012 by Chad Smith Leave a reply »
Advertisement