Looks like Boylen laid into Paul George after the TWolves game, and Paul took it to heart. Certainly looked like a different player after this game from my eyes at least.
I still think he's got what it takes to be truly special, with the right coaching and support. With some more upper body strength, he can move into Granger's role IMO.
The bigger happy circumstance is that Stephenson is leveraging his opportunity to make his case to be a contributing guard alongside Hill. My favorite time spectating all season has been when Stephenson/Hill are on the floor.
But if this season has taught us nothing else it is that Danny Granger is very hard to replace and no Paul George can't do it. I'll be polite & say yet, but in my mind I don't think he can do what Danny can do. He can do other things Danny could never do but Danny has the mindset of a killer & Paul just doesn't. There is nothing wrong with that btw, I think they compliment each other very well.
By the way, Tyler was great as well. If he hadn't missed those free throws, it would have been another solid A game from him.
There was a report on Cornrows. Not sure it's the same one doc is referring to:
George also looked different with the ball in his hands -- more confident and appearing to have a plan with the ball in his hands. After making his first shot, PG knocked down smooth a one-dribble pull-up that reeked of confidence. Something that has been absent in George's offensive game for much of the early season.
"I prepared a little differently for tonight," George said. "And it work. I came in here a little earlier, got a lift in and gotta lot of shots up. I sat down with the coaches and kind of talked a little bit and I was just out there being aggressive."
The frustrations of the early season losses and lack of consistent play pushed George to change things up. He's been anything but efficient with the ball in his hands, instead turning it over too much and missing forced shots.
"I've been frustrated all season long," George said. "Shots aren't going down, I'm getting good looks but just couldn't knock the shots down so I had to switch something up and it worked, I guess."
George hashed things out with assistant coach Jim Boylen who stressed being more efficient with his play at both ends of the court. PG took the straight talk as constructive criticism as an opportunity to learn and get better.
There's two ways you can interpret it," George said. "And I took is as, while I'm out there I've cot to make the most of what coach is giving me."
I love what PG brings to the table, but I'm curious why some think he can turn into a 20ppg type of scorer.
As far as the 20ppg scorer part, it is because he is very smooth on offense and athletic. He has all the tools necessary to average 20+ppg. Now I view him more like Reggie where he is more of an 18ppg type of player.
Onto the original question.
George isn't like Granger or West. Where Granger and West have fire, George has ice. Players like George tend to be not as obvious with their emotions. Add to it George wants to be a team player. He has some inner conflict going on, but to me what is very telling is by how comfortable he looks. The times he has looked the most comfortable is when the whole offense has revolved around him. So the beginning of the Toronto game, and when he is given the ball at the end of a quarter to get his own shot. So far he has been deadly at the end of a quarter.
p.s. I re-wrote that a million times, so I hope it got across what I was trying to say.
It WOULD be interesting to bring up a few more examples of clutch players and what they looked like their first two or three years. And was Reggie really similar to PG or was his future much more obvious in the prologue?
"I like our group of people," Ainge told USA Today. "I'm trying to teach them about basketball, and they're trying to teach me about analytics."
For example, if Paul had George's (Hill) confidence/mentality, he'd be an all-star. George has always seemed to have that type of mentality, even in his rookie yr on the Spurs, whereas Paul has maybe a handful of games where he's shown that aggressive mentality.
With Paul I think it has less to do with aggressiveness or mentality, as it does confidence. He doesn't seem to have the confidence that what he is doing is what he is supposed to be doing. He isn't a selfish player, he needs to be told that it is good for him to be selfish sometimes. At the same time Vogel needs to realize the best way to use Paul is to run plays designed to get him open shots. He will never be a consistent give him the ball and let him do his thing type of player, that a Rose, LeBron, or to a much lesser extent Granger are, he is more a flow of the offense type of player with a sprinkling of let him do his thing. Those type of players tend to not make as big of splashes, but they can be just as deadly.
I don't see the "killer" part coming into play either way. He's yet to wilt or step up. He's still in 2nd or 3rd best guy mode which was his entire career experience until about 2 weeks ago.
Or course since I fully expect a Odd Thoughts rant saying Roy will never get another rebound or 10 point game again in his life, I shouldn't be surprised. You like to ride the roller coaster for sure.
I do agree that Paul and Danny can compliment each other due to the type of game Paul likes playing, a bit more off the dribble and floating for his moment vs Danny's "give me the shot" spot up style. But over time in the void of Danny I think Paul will grow as a scorer. It's just that those things are 30-40 game developments, not 10 days.
Having dumped on Peck a bit, I think we can (and do) all agree that the 8m George Hill got was because the dude has a killer attitude inside him. The last couple of games he's just said "F this" and taken to insanely pushing the ball up court with his dribble and going right into sprinting layups, clearly showing a "well now this is happening" attitude. And it's helping.