There's been a lot of talk about the Pacers being a team that's low on talent. I've bought into this to a certain extent, but I'm starting to rethink it a bit.
Also, I think the evaluations of talent level will be different at the end of the season than at the beginning.
Let's take a team like Philadelphia. Do they really have more talent than the Pacers? How would you rank the significant players on both rosters? I think Granger's #1, followed closely by Iguodala at #2, and Andre Miller at #3. After that it gets pretty murky, but I think you could make the case that Ford, Jack, and Murphy are as good as anybody else on Philly's roster, especially if you don't count Elton Brand.
I'm really out to see on this issue, but I'm leaning toward saying that I think the Pacers underacheived from a talent perspective, but I can't seem to muster any vitriol towards O'Brien or the players when I say this.
I guess I need to do a better job factoring in the fact that we were getting contributions from Rush and Hibbert at the end of the season that we weren't at the beginning and these contribuitions have drastically affected my appraisal of our talent level.