The Three-Man Weave: George’s Whining, Vogel’s Future, Ibaka’s Impact

We have decided to bring back the Three-Man Weave, which we did for a while back in the day before the guest authors turned their answers into SAT essays.

While emphasizing no extra page clicks and answers around 100 words or so, we address Paul George’s whining, Frank Vogel’s future and Serge Ibaka’s impact.

1. Were Paul George’s complaints about the officiating in Game 4 warranted?

CHRIS SHERIDAN: The comments were warranted insofar as George is trying to work the officials, getting them to call another game like they did in Game 1 when the Heat went to the line only 12 times. Or maybe I give George too much credit, and he was not doing his coach’s work for him. Look, you are not going to beat the Miami Heat from the foul line. You need balanced scoring and contributions from everyone — like the Pacers had in Game 1 and haven’t had since.

CHRIS BERNUCCA: While I felt like the game had somewhat of a Miami whistle, that does not excuse what George said afterward because (a) the Heat have LeBron James and Dwyane Wade, so many of their games seem to have a Miami whistle and (b) the next step in George’s development is acquiring the superstar whistle, and if this series has revealed anything, he is not there yet. His performance in last year’s conference finals and Halloween-to-Christmas run this season had us believing he was ready to take that step but he is still not there.

SHLOMO SPRUNG: Come on, Paul George. Can George blame officials for Indiana committing twice as many turnovers as Miami in Game 4? What about the entire team having just one block and one steal, or Roy Hibbert’s minus-23? Did the refs let LeBron James shoot 13-for-21 from the field, or was that the team’s defense? If Paul George worried about getting his teammates back into the right mindset half as much as the refereeing, maybe the Pacers will get back into this series.

2. Now that it has become clear that Indiana is not going to beat Miami as currently configured, does Frank Vogel return as coach?

SHERIDAN: This has been a long, slow fade by Indiana, and there is enough smoke in terms of tales of locker room woe to believe there is something legitimate fueling the rumors of disharmony. Maybe Vogel put too much power in the hands of Danny Granger, and when Granger was traded it all fell apart. That would not be Vogel’s fault, but it is on Vogel to pull aside a player who needs to be a leader (hello, Paul George) and make sure that player becomes more vocal. I’d say it’s 50-50 Vogel gets fired. I think he has a big supporter in Donnie Walsh, but it’s the level of support among the players that counts. Read George’s comments very carefully when this season ends.

BERNUCCA: If this was one year ago at this time – before the wave of firing coaches after wildly successful seasons began – I would say Vogel would be back for one more run with this group, albeit on a short leash. But there were 13 coaching changes last offseason, including three teams (Denver, Memphis, LA Clippers) who changed first chair after the best season in franchise history. Add that developing NBA trend to the fact that the Pacers nearly ran off the rails several times after the All-Star break and Vogel’s boss is a former Coach of the Year who has publicly questioned Vogel, and I will be stunned if Vogel is still employed by the Pacers when the draft arrives.

SPRUNG: Vogel’s going to have a lot of explaining to do, because the decline of this team started in March. Similar to the situation in Oklahoma City, management has to wonder if Vogel is the coach that will get the Pacers past this plateau they seemed to have hit. If the players have stopped responding to Vogel’s leadership, or if his in-series adjustments haven’t been up to snuff against a team like Miami, maybe it is indeed time to give Vogel his walking papers.

3. Was Serge Ibaka’s return just a temporary emotional boost for the Thunder, or is it a thing?

SHERIDAN: Look, we knew the Thunder could not compete with the Spurs without Ibaka. As important as he is to what the Thunder do on a night-in, night-out basis, he is doubly important against the Spurs because of the amount of shots they get from the paint. Ibaka’s hot start to Game 3 energized everyone in that building (except the Spurs), but that was the type of Willis Reed moment that can only be summoned once. Reggie Jackson becoming a starter had as much to do with that win as anything. My question for Scott Brooks: What took you so long?

BERNUCCA: I often vacillate between marvel and disgust when watching the Thunder, because I cannot believe how successful they are despite giving away more possessions with bad shots, passes or overall sets than any other true contender. Ibaka reduces OKC’s “bad possession margin.” His defense reduced San Antonio’s good possessions and his presence gave Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook a trustworthy teammate to throw the ball to other than each other. I still think Tony Parker’s 4-of-13 and four turnovers had more to do with the outcome of Game 3. The question really is, How much is Ibaka affecting Parker’s game?

SPRUNG: When you have a player as impactful as Ibaka return, it has to be a thing. His defensive prowess and overall athleticism not only affects the starting lineup, but also deepens the Thunder bench, which is important against a San Antonio team with an extremely strong second unit. If Ibaka can help at all to counteract what Kawhi Leonard and Tim Duncan can do offensively, it immediately becomes much more than just an emotional pick-me-up.