How close is 2015 Jim Butler to 2014 Paul George?

[HALLandOATES]

??

[RonSwanson]

Bout as close as steak to seafood

:biggums:

[Heavincent]

PG carried the Pacers. Look at them now without him...complete shit.

Butler is good but there's no way he would be able to carry that Pacers team to 54 wins like George did.

[SamuraiSWISH]

PG carried the Pacers.
Then he's a piss poor leader considering their historic collapse from '93 Knick caliber team to why are they struggling so much in the playoffs?

It wasn't just PG, it was a group effort that had terrific chemistry. For a period at least. There was no true best player, and leader on the floor to harnass all those personalities. PG was good, but often inconsistent.

People were making superstar claims about him that were unfounded. Same way Butler is getting too much hype after not even half a season of ball.

[Heavincent]

Then he's a piss poor leader considering their historic collapse from '93 Knick caliber team. It wasn't just PG, it was a group effort that had terrific chemistry. For a period at least. There was no true best player, and leader on the floor to harnass all those personalities. PG was good, but often inconsistent. People were making superstar claims about him that were unfounded. Same way Butler is getting too much hype after not even half a season of ball.

He still got them to the ECF, despite all of the chaos.

Pacers were pretty soft/stupid anyway, aside from West. Stevenson is a bonehead, Hibbert is basically Kwame Brown, Hill is not a good starting PG, bench was crap, etc. Remember, George is very young himself. What did you want him to do, lead them to a title? I'd say he did a damn good job leading a pretty average group of players to the conference finals, even though the historically weak conference had a lot to with it.

PG was going to be a superstar...now I'm not sure because of the injury.