Spurs' Hill makes date to fix his wayward shot

[SPURSGOAT]

Mike Monroe - Express-News LAS VEGAS — Link (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/spurs/Spurs_Hill_makes_date_to_fix_his_wayward_shot.html )

Spurs first-round draft pick George Hill believes it is his destiny to be a solid, contributing point guard for the four-time NBA champions.

He also believes strongly that players forge their destinies through hard work and resilience.

It wasn’t fate that made Hill miss nearly every shot he attempted in the three games he played in the Las Vegas Summer Pro League this week, but it will be his resoluteness that puts him back in a gym in Indianapolis next week, putting up hundreds of shots every day.

Making the transition from being the featured scorer, mostly from the big guard position, at Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis (IUPUI), to playing point guard for the Spurs messed with Hill’s head in his first competitions in silver and black.

Spurs coach Gregg Popovich put it best after Hill followed an 0-for-10 shooting game with an 0-for-6 outing.

“He’s mentally twisted right now,” Popovich said.

Hill is determined to untwist himself as soon as he is back home again, in Indiana.

“I’m going to get up a lot of shots and find my shooting touch back,” Hill said before leaving Las Vegas with the rest of the summer Spurs for Salt Lake City and the annual Rocky Mountain Revue, where the summer team is to play four more games. “I’ll also watch a lot of  film, watch how Tony Parker picks his spots, just to help me become a point guard and learn from him. I’ll run more to get in shape and I’ll be in the best shape I can possibly be in when I come to training camp.”

Hill’s horrid shooting — he went 2 or 9 in his first summer league game — had some observers in Las Vegas questioning the wisdom of the Spurs’ use of the 26th pick in the first round to select the 6-foot-3 combo guard from IUPUI.

Other experts, though, counseled patience, including Lafayette Lever, one of the best combo guards in the 1980s. Like Hill, Lever was a 6-3 point guard who was a first-round pick because of his all-around game, but not because he was a great shooter.

Now director of player development for the Sacramento Kings, he recorded 16 triple doubles for the Denver Nuggets in the 1986-87 season, when he averaged 18.9 points. 8.9 rebounds and 8.0 assists.

“I made a bet with a bunch of scouts in Orlando (at the pre-draft camp),” Lever said. “Some of them said George wouldn’t even get drafted. I told them I was sure he’d go in the first round. I’m just as sure he’s going to be fine for the Spurs, because he’s a basketball player and he knows how to play and he competes and he defends.”

The most important expert still firmly in Hill’s camp: Popovich.

“He’s shown us two things,” Popovich said. “One, that he is a legitimate NBA defender. He’s done a very good job on some very high draft picks in this (Las Vegas) camp.

“The other thing that is obvious about him is that he’s overwhelmed offensively, with running the point in the NBA and understanding pick-and-roll defenses and that sort of thing. It’s affected his whole game offensively, to where he’s unsure and unconfident about his shot, and about delivering the basketball.”

Having Hill’s offensive game completely break down, Popovich said, is not entirely a bad thing.

“Now he knows exactly what he needs to do to build himself back up to be a contributor for us.”

Hill isn’t happy about his lost shooting touch, but is certain he can regain it.

Popovich’s reassurance helped.

“He told me it’s a learning thing,” Hill said of a talk he had with the Spurs’ head coach after his 0-for-10 outing. “He said, ‘We didn’t bring you out here to average 30 and 10 all the time.’ He said it’s OK to bump my head while I’m learning.

“It’s great when you know your head coach thinks that highly of you and just wants you to be the best you can be, and not worry about if you’re in a shooting slump.

“It’s bad, but at the same time it’s a good thing to get it out of the way now, in this learning point.”

* * *
George Hill

Full name: George Jesse Hill Jr.

Position: Guard

Size: 6-foot-2, 180 pounds

Born: May 4, 1986

High school: Indianapolis Broad Ripple

College: Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis

College averages: 17.0 points, 2.3 rebounds, 1.6 assists per game

Summer League: Average of 8 points, 7 rebounds, 3 assists in three games

Highlights: Named Summit League Player of the Year and earned Associated Press All-America honorable mention last season as a redshirt junior. ... Strengths, according to his NBA.com draft profile: “Extremely quick and athletic and gets to the basket in a hurry. Handles and passes the ball well and plays unselfishly.”

[DMX7]

“The other thing that is obvious about him is that he’s overwhelmed offensively, with running the point in the NBA and understanding pick-and-roll defenses and that sort of thing.

Lets hope that really is the reason because it's not like he's the first player to have to learn those things.

[Marcus Bryant]

The most important expert still firmly in Hill’s camp: Popovich.

“He’s shown us two things,” Popovich said. “One, that he is a legitimate NBA defender. He’s done a very good job on some very high draft picks in this (Las Vegas) camp.

“The other thing that is obvious about him is that he’s overwhelmed offensively, with running the point in the NBA and understanding pick-and-roll defenses and that sort of thing. It’s affected his whole game offensively, to where he’s unsure and unconfident about his shot, and about delivering the basketball.”

Having Hill’s offensive game completely break down, Popovich said, is not entirely a bad thing.

“Now he knows exactly what he needs to do to build himself back up to be a contributor for us.”

Hill isn’t happy about his lost shooting touch, but is certain he can regain it.

Popovich’s reassurance helped.

“He told me it’s a learning thing,” Hill said of a talk he had with the Spurs’ head coach after his 0-for-10 outing. “He said, ‘We didn’t bring you out here to average 30 and 10 all the time.’ He said it’s OK to bump my head while I’m learning.

“It’s great when you know your head coach thinks that highly of you and just wants you to be the best you can be, and not worry about if you’re in a shooting slump.

“It’s bad, but at the same time it’s a good thing to get it out of the way now, in this learning point.”

Suck it, internets GMs.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Suck it, internets GMs.

:lmao

You keep this up there's gonna be a whole lot of your quotes in my sig.

[The Truth #6]

If he already plays excellent defense, then that puts him ahead of a lot of players. He has the athletic skills he's just confused with a new position and a new level of talent. His transition will be much more difficult than Gist, but could be a better pro than Gist if and when he figures it out.

[duncan228]

Gotta love Pop.

[knee-knee-3]

If he can rebound and defend better than Vaughn, then I'll take it!

[picnroll]

Pop and Lever obviously forgot to consult with Mr Body and have no idea what they are talking about.

[Taking it to the Hole]

It amazes me how so many posters on this forum are ready to write off this kid after 4 summer league games. He's a rookie, trying to learn a new system, adjust to a new role, and on top of that he feels he has to live up to the expectations that the Spurs have for him. He doesn't need fans tearing him down after every game.

I still believe the Spurs made a wise choice in selecting him because, like Manu, even when he isn't playing well offensively, he is going to try to find a way to help his team win. It is the players who refuse to lose that win games, not the ones who put up stats for their own self-glorification.

[GINNNNNNNNNNNNOBILI]

Hey... Beno went two years without hitting a shot, and people still want him back.

[ducks]

yeaH so spurs can trade him for ron

[angelbelow]

nice article.. as long as the spurs have confidence in hill i will never question them.

[Biggems]

yeaH so spurs can trade him for ron

who is this Ron you speak of? I know of no Ron....but I know a Bill who may be available for the right price.

[mystargtr34]

What did he finish with today....
21 points and 3 assists

How many boards?

[SPURSGOAT]

Hill played like a first round draft pick tonight. You can really see his whole game coming together... he is picking up the PG role pretty fast. He would have more assists if the guys he is passing to could shoot. His D is already very good and only getting better; had a couple of nice steals. Kinda was amazed to see how smooth he was in the second half.. he had some nice moves and some sweet passes.

[anakha]

Suck it, internets GMs.

So... let me get this straight...

You're saying that the team's head coach, who's probably worked personally with the guy since before the draft, and a former player who came into the into the league under similar circumstances, are more reliable sources of information on the guy then a group of fans whose main contact with the guy has most probably been what they've seen of him in 4 games this summer?

Getoutahere. :lol

[Ryvin1]

So... let me get this straight...

You're saying that the team's head coach, who's probably worked personally with the guy since before the draft, and a former player who came into the into the league under similar circumstances, are more reliable sources of information on the guy then a group of fans whose main contact with the guy has most probably been what they've seen of him in 4 games this summer?

Getoutahere. :lol

don't forget all the blurry you-tube clips and choppy summer game broadcasts.

[T Park]

So... let me get this straight...

You're saying that the team's head coach, who's probably worked personally with the guy since before the draft, and a former player who came into the into the league under similar circumstances, are more reliable sources of information on the guy then a group of fans whose main contact with the guy has most probably been what they've seen of him in 4 games this summer?

Getoutahere. :lol


Exactly.

This article will be brushed off as "kool aid drinking homerism" though.

[DespЏrado]

Anyone who bagged on this guy needs to learn to evaluate a players gamesmanship before they dismiss a guy with as much talent as Hill. The guy clearly is just struggling but it should be just as clear that he's got what it takes to be in the NBA.

His defense and rebounding are so much better than any backup point guard we have had since probably Doc Rivers. His shot looks like it will come around and that will make him a hell of an asset to this team. I already like him better than Beno and Vaughn.

[Manufan909]

Suck it, internets GMs.


+1 How bout them double G's, George and The Gist!!!:downspin:

[midgetonadonkey]

George Hill is going to be a beast.

[anakha]

The reference to Fat Lever brought up some old memories and had me digging for his stats on basketball-reference.com.

The guy (at 6'3") led his team in total rebounds for four straight seasons (1986-1990), and just barely missed out on being the leader in rebounds per game over the same timespan, by only 0.1, in the 87-88 season.

He also averaged about 19 points and 7.5 assists over those four seasons.

An extremely underrated (and underappreciated, due to the presence of Alex English at the time) player.

[jag]

Let's get this whole thing back in to perspective...all George Hill has to do is be better than Jacque Vaughn.

[jag]

^^^I'm slightly optimistic here.

[wisnub]

He just got into the team..give him room to improve. He can suck all he wants at summer league, but he better put up hundreds of shots a day like he said and more on the weekends. I believe Chip can help him in department. When season start there will be no excuses..its either make a statement or suck balls like a whore....

[midgetonadonkey]

^^^I'm slightly optimistic here.


With Tom Brady in your sig it's obvious you are a band wagoner. Fuck yourself.

[GSH]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2669129#post2669129 Not word-for-word, but yeah.

I like Hill. I don't question that he has talent, or that he's a good fit for the Spurs. And I think he probably has the mental toughness and work ethic to make himself better. But in my mind, the article reinforces what I have seen in the games so far. (Including tonight's game in Utah.) He's a project. He didn't run the point in college, and they brought him in to play point in the NBA. And, as Popovich says, he is "overwhelmed offensively" and "mentally twisted". That's pretty much the definition of a project.

I've watched Mario Chalmers in a couple of summer league games, and he doesn't look like that. There was an article this week that quoted Larry Bird as saying that Chalmers was "the steal of the draft" this year.

I didn't know anything about Hill when they called his name. After learning about him, and watching him in a few games, I don't think it was a mistake to draft him. But... I do think it was a mistake to draft him ahead of Chalmers. In terms of being an NBA point guard, there is no comparison between the two right now. Maybe at mid-season Hill will have some minutes under his belt, and show improvement. But so will Chalmers. It's going to take some time to see the upside from picking him. And that, once again, is how you usually describe a project player.

I'm not being negative about Hill. He has a lot going for him. Hopefully some day everyone will talk about what a good pick he was. But he's going to have to pick up a lot of boards, and do a whole lot of the "little things" well, if people are going to talk about why he was a better pick than Mario Chalmers. And, unfortunatly, I think you could say all the same things about CDR.

Here's hoping that I'm wrong: :toast

[wisnub]

Put up hundreds of shots a day like u said...and more. Think about all the guard that spurs passed on the 1st round. Oh and watch lots of japanese fighting movies. That should lift up the spirits...

[ElNono]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2669129#post2669129 Not word-for-word, but yeah.

I like Hill. I don't question that he has talent, or that he's a good fit for the Spurs. And I think he probably has the mental toughness and work ethic to make himself better. But in my mind, the article reinforces what I have seen in the games so far. (Including tonight's game in Utah.) He's a project. He didn't run the point in college, and they brought him in to play point in the NBA. And, as Popovich says, he is "overwhelmed offensively" and "mentally twisted". That's pretty much the definition of a project.

I've watched Mario Chalmers in a couple of summer league games, and he doesn't look like that. There was an article this week that quoted Larry Bird as saying that Chalmers was "the steal of the draft" this year.

I didn't know anything about Hill when they called his name. After learning about him, and watching him in a few games, I don't think it was a mistake to draft him. But... I do think it was a mistake to draft him ahead of Chalmers. In terms of being an NBA point guard, there is no comparison between the two right now. Maybe at mid-season Hill will have some minutes under his belt, and show improvement. But so will Chalmers. It's going to take some time to see the upside from picking him. And that, once again, is how you usually describe a project player.

I'm not being negative about Hill. He has a lot going for him. Hopefully some day everyone will talk about what a good pick he was. But he's going to have to pick up a lot of boards, and do a whole lot of the "little things" well, if people are going to talk about why he was a better pick than Mario Chalmers. And, unfortunatly, I think you could say all the same things about CDR.

Here's hoping that I'm wrong: :toast

Sorry, but if you don't love Hill, you're automatically a hater and possibly not a Spurs fan. You're not to critique him or question the FO decisions. Thank you.

[anakha]

Sorry, but if you don't love Hill, you're automatically a hater and possibly not a Spurs fan. You're not to critique him or question the FO decisions. Thank you.

Somebody's a little defensive today. :lol

[ElNono]

It took a Tony Parker who already played professionally in France and played PG all his life, about 3 years to become a solid PG under Pop's wing. I would be greatly surprised (and glad), if Hill can be a decent backup by the end of the season.

[ElNono]

Somebody's a little defensive today. :lol

Just calling out the homers...

[GSH]

It took a Tony Parker who already played professionally in France and played PG all his life, about 3 years to become a solid PG under Pop's wing. I would be greatly surprised (and glad), if Hill can be a decent backup by the end of the season.

Now there I disagree. It took TP three years to become an outstanding, starting point guard on the best team in the NBA. Hill doesn't need to live up to that this season. We already have a Tony Parker.

If Hill could get to the point that he can distribute the ball adequatly, without having to think about it, and maybe get to the line some when he's backing up Parker, it would be enough. His quickness, rebounding, and defense would make him preferable to Vaughn in that spot.

The question is, can he run the point this season without having to think about it? At the NBA level, a little bit of hesitation can make a good decision look like a bad one. It's a lot to ask from a guy who was a 2 in college.

[Drom John]

George Hill doesn't have to be better than Jacques Vaughan to improve the team. Hill only has to be better than Damon Stoudamire, the player Hill is slated to replace. If Hill also plays better than Vaughan, then that is a bonus.

At this time, I see Hill as significantly better than Stoudamire, good enough to take all of Stoudamire's time, a bit of Vaughan's when defense is wanted more than ball handling, and good enough to take a minute per game from Parker for rest.

How many of you prefer Stoudamire to Hill?

[bigfundamental21]

It amazes me how so many posters on this forum are ready to write off this kid after 4 summer league games. He's a rookie, trying to learn a new system, adjust to a new role, and on top of that he feels he has to live up to the expectations that the Spurs have for him. He doesn't need fans tearing him down after every game.

I still believe the Spurs made a wise choice in selecting him because, like Manu, even when he isn't playing well offensively, he is going to try to find a way to help his team win. It is the players who refuse to lose that win games, not the ones who put up stats for their own self-glorification.


+1.

This is a learning process for him and he seems to be handling himself like a pro already. He is already learning the idea of continuing to strike the rock. It will not take one blow but a collection of many blows to get the rock to split. Besides, he wasn't drafted to come in and score 30 points a game.

[ceperez]

George Hill doesn't have to be better than Jacques Vaughan to improve the team. Hill only has to be better than Damon Stoudamire, the player Hill is slated to replace. If Hill also plays better than Vaughan, then that is a bonus.

At this time, I see Hill as significantly better than Stoudamire, good enough to take all of Stoudamire's time, a bit of Vaughan's when defense is wanted more than ball handling, and good enough to take a minute per game from Parker for rest.

How many of you prefer Stoudamire to Hill?

Disagree completely. George Hill has definitely got to be better than Jacque Vaughn! If he isn't then we have'nt got a snow ball's chance in hell to win the next championship.

[Spurs Brazil]

Hill played his best game yesterday and Monroe says nothing

[ElNono]

Now there I disagree. It took TP three years to become an outstanding, starting point guard on the best team in the NBA. Hill doesn't need to live up to that this season. We already have a Tony Parker.

I have to disagree with you. He was a solid PG at that point, that could run an offense through Tim Duncan. He did not have a jumper then and was relatively simple to stop being that he could only drive (hence running 4 down almost every time). He still had major disappearing issues during the playoffs, and he regularly had meetings with Pop's wrath. He was solid. It took him 3 more years after that to develop a jumper and be an All-Star (what I can consider outstanding). As far as being a starter, well, he pretty much was since the get go. That doesn't mean he was solid. Without a Speedy Claxton we don't win in '03.

[ducks]

it took nash longer then tp to become good

[anakha]

That was quick.

ducks must have this sixth sense of detecting any posts criticizing Parker. :lol

[K-State Spur]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2669129#post2669129
I've watched Mario Chalmers in a couple of summer league games, and he doesn't look like that. There was an article this week that quoted Larry Bird as saying that Chalmers was "the steal of the draft" this year.
...But... I do think it was a mistake to draft him ahead of Chalmers. In terms of being an NBA point guard, there is no comparison between the two right now. Maybe at mid-season Hill will have some minutes under his belt, and show improvement. But so will Chalmers. It's going to take some time to see the upside from picking him. And that, once again, is how you usually describe a project player.


Hill has been struggling to adjust to being a PG for less than 1 week.

Chalmers PROVED that he struggled running the point over 3 years in Lawrence.

I actually like Chalmers as a prospect as well, but it is true that every time he ran the point in college, his offense went completely to shit. NEARLY ALL of his success came playing off the ball.

A few solid summer league games (that have been bolstered by trips to the free throw line that he's not going to get in the NBA) does not change that.

That's not to say that he won't be an effective NBA PG. But if anybody is going to worry Hill based on this week's games, there is a mountain of evidence against MC compared to Hill's molehill.

[K-State Spur]

I'll also say that I wonder if our coaches may have had some questions on how Chalmers' defense would translate to the league.

He was a tremendous collegiate defender, but KU's backcourt is/was much more handsy and physical on the perimeter than any NBA official would allow.

[Sway]

Suck it, internets GMs.

This article doesnt prove anything other than Pop is still confident in Hill. I am sure you can find similiar articles, and probably way more positive, about Arthur, CDR, Chalmers, and Greene from their teams.

Im not in the "defend every decision the FO makes to the death" (which you my friend have unfortunately fallen into) clique or the "this is the worst pick in the history of the Draft" clique.

There is a middle ground, you could try to look at the situation with a little objectivity. Hill's performance thus far has been subpar and it is ok to say that, but at the same time, it is not ok to say he is a bust or a bad pick. Judgement must be held at least until after next season when a comparison can be made of Hill, Arthur, CDR, Chalmers, and Greene.

[Harry Callahan]

I also suspect MC's evaluation by the ST posters is strictly on the offensive end of the floor (reading a boxscore the next day).

If Hill can (in his first year) become a Lindsay Hunter type pest on the defensive end, he can be a very significant part of this team. If he can defend the 1 and 2 spot, then that is an additional bonus. I have not seen the SL games to this point (out of town without a good connection), but hopefully I can this week.

I just surprised GH is struggling putting the ball in the hole so far with the natural, smooth shot technique he showed in the college clips of him. Shooting well over 50% was his history. The emphasis on the PG position (full time) with the offensive and defensive emphasis (run the team and pressure the ball) may be gassing him right now.

[ElNono]

This article doesnt prove anything other than Pop is still confident in Hill. I am sure you can find similiar articles, and probably way more positive, about Arthur, CDR, Chalmers, and Greene from their teams.

Im not in the "defend every decision the FO makes to the death" (which you my friend have unfortunately fallen into) clique or the "this is the worst pick in the history of the Draft" clique.

There is a middle ground, you could try to look at the situation with a little objectivity. Hill's performance thus far has been subpar and it is ok to say that, but at the same time, it is not ok to say he is a bust or a bad pick. Judgement must be held at least until after next season when a comparison can be made of Hill, Arthur, CDR, Chalmers, and Greene.

There's no such thing as objectiveness here. You are either with us or against us. You're probably not even a Spur fan. :rolleyes

[ElNono]

If Hill can (in his first year) become a Lindsay Hunter type pest on the defensive end, he can be a very significant part of this team. If he can defend the 1 and 2 spot, then that is an additional bonus. I have not seen the SL games to this point (out of town without a good connection), but hopefully I can this week.

Wow, talk about unrealistic expectations. The only reason Lindsey is still playing in this league is because his defensive prowess. Takes years to defend like that.

[SequSpur]

What the hell do you expect Pop to say? Shit.. he stated the stroke the young boy who can't play so he can save face take...

Damn you guys are fricking stupid.

[benefactor]

There is a middle ground, you could try to look at the situation with a little objectivity. Hill's performance thus far has been subpar and it is ok to say that, but at the same time, it is not ok to say he is a bust or a bad pick. Judgement must be held at least until after next season when a comparison can be made of Hill, Arthur, CDR, Chalmers, and Greene.
This is a pretty good take on it. There seems to be a lot of extremes regarding Hill...whether people think he is our savior or he is the worst draft bust since Michael Olowokandi. I look at other guards and wonder if picking someone that had already played more point would have been better, but it seems the FO was willing to develop a player like Hill because of all his character intangibles...dedication to his family, commitment to a small school when he could have bailed and gone to a big one after his grandfather died, etc.

As far as overall potential, he has just as good of a chance as any of the other players you mentioned...and he and all those other players have just as good of a chance of failing in the NBA. It has been proven time and time again with players that are drafted and proclaimed as great prospects only to fall. He is our player now and there is nothing that can change that. The best thing to do is try to be as objective as possible and be careful about making any definite statements about him until we get a few months into the season...when we can better gauge how his development has come along.

But I know until then there will be those who choose to dwell in the negative and those who choose to dwell in the positives. IMHO, I have seen more positives than negatives...so I will stay positive about him for now and we shall see what transpires through the rest of the Summer League, the preseason and the first part of the regular season.

[GSH]

Hill has been struggling to adjust to being a PG for less than 1 week.

Chalmers PROVED that he struggled running the point over 3 years in Lawrence.

I actually like Chalmers as a prospect as well, but it is true that every time he ran the point in college, his offense went completely to shit. NEARLY ALL of his success came playing off the ball.


You're obviously the resident expert on Kansas basketball. I only got to see MC a couple of times in college. So if you say his offense went to shit when he was at the 1, I believe it. I hope you don't mind a serious question about it: When you say his offense went to shit, do you mean his own scoring numbers, or was he ineffective running the point? Because if he scored less, but distributed the ball well, that's something you can live with in a backup PG. If the team's performance sucked when he was at the point, that's a different story.

There have been a few people in this thread willing to have a difference of opinion without all the flaming and insults, so I'll risk commenting further. Maybe I'll learn something from the responses.

I watched MC's summer league games, and he came out looking confident and delivered some impressive performances. He seemed to know what he was about, and he was loose. In Hill's first couple of games, he looked tenative and tight. Popovich says he was "overwhelmed" and that he is learning pick and roll defenses.

My personal belief is that you can't have a PG who is tenative at the NBA level of play, no matter what his talent level. (Especially a "pure" PG, instead of a shoot-first PG.) The players are so much quicker, and anticipate so much better, they will pick him apart. So if Hill is having to think while he's trying to distribute the ball, he's going to struggle. And the only way to get to the point of playing loose is through knowledge and repetition at the position. My opinion, but I don't think it's that radical.

The numbers the two players have put up in summer league aren't what I am looking at. It's their confidence and apparent comfort level on the floor. That may not mean anything by the time the season starts. But at this moment we are closer to the draft than the regular season, and Chalmers looks like he is well ahead of Hill in terms of NBA readiness.

Hill sounds like an intelligent guy in interviews. And the Spurs believe he has the mental toughness they look for. So maybe he can shorten the learning curve, and get the reps he needs before November. And, based on what you said about MC's college play, Hill may ultimately be the better pure PG of the two. Nobody is rooting for him any more than I am.

[K-State Spur]

When you say his offense went to shit, do you mean his own scoring numbers, or was he ineffective running the point?

Both. For all of his strengths, offensively he was not much more than a spot up shooter who relied on collapsing defenses to get him his shots. I've been shocked by his FTA in the summer league so far because he could go entire months in college without getting to the line that much.

Now, I will say this - when they moved him to the 2, he's a better passer than most 2 guards. But when he played the point, he was tentative and struggled mightily to balance getting his own shot vs. getting the team in the offense, which usually resulted in neither occurring.

KU's offense really took off 2 years ago when they moved Chalmers off the ball and let Sherron Collins - who is a shoot first PG himself - run the point.

[duncan228]

Hill played his best game yesterday and Monroe says nothing

It looks like the article was written before yesterday's game.


It wasn’t fate that made Hill miss nearly every shot he attempted in the three games he played in the Las Vegas Summer Pro League this week...

[GSH]

One last comment about the Spurs draft. Making a less-than-totally-positive observation about Hill doesn't equate to saying that he is hopeless, or that the Spurs FO are incompetent.

I thought the Spurs could have taken Chalmers or CDR at 26, and still gotten Hill in the second round. We'll never know, but in the article posted, Lever says differently - that someone would have taken Hill before our second pick. If that was true, then it's a lot harder to argue with taking Hill, since they were obviously sold on him as a person as well as a player.

The other thing is that even IF they had managed to get Hill with their second pick, they wouldn't have gotten either Gist or Hairston. And either one of those guys (right now it looks more like Gist) could balance the equation.

Even if Hill is a little less than Chalmers this season, but Gist is able to bring it off the bench, it will have been a good draft. Because as much as we need a backup PG, we also need some energy and toughness off the bench. If we get that from a 45 or 57 pick, the FO deserves some applause.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'd doubt that there's any front office in the league that's closer to the coaching staff at Kansas than the front office in San Antonio. I seriously doubt that the Spurs proceeded with their draft decisions without undertaking their due diligence and asking Self and his staff what they thought about the Jayhawks who were available in the draft. With that said, the fact that the Spurs passed on Chalmers to select Hill suggests to me that the Kansas staff had some doubts about Chalmers -- likely the doubts that K-State has detailed. I'm hypothesizing, but I'd guess that if there were such criticisms, the fact that those crticisms came from trusted friends is probably not insignificant.

Time will tell on Chalmers v. Hill. Summer league is not that time.

[T Park]

There's no such thing as objectiveness here. You are either with us or against us. You're probably not even a Spur fan. :rolleyes

Oh STFU already.

I've seen enough of your emo BS and am sick of it.

Slit the wrists and stop posting and get it over with.


No one said you HAD to agree with the FO or any other BS.

But people like you labeling the guy a bust and saying he sucks the FO is idiots for drafting him is the BS.

How about giving the kid some time against REAL NBA competition, some regular season games, maybe even,GASP!!! A FULL SEASON!!
OH NOES!!!


STFU already you little piss ant.

[FromWayDowntown]

I thought the Spurs could have taken Chalmers or CDR at 26, and still gotten Hill in the second round. We'll never know but in the article posted, Lever says differently - that someone would have taken Hill before our second pick. If that was true, then it's a lot harder to argue with taking Hill, since they were obviously sold on him as a person as well as a player.


There are published reports that Boston had promised to select Hill if he got past the Spurs at 26.

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2008/07/13/not_one_to_simmer/?page=2

[GSH]

Both. For all of his strengths, offensively he was not much more than a spot up shooter who relied on collapsing defenses to get him his shots. I've been shocked by his FTA in the summer league so far because he could go entire months in college without getting to the line that much.

Now, I will say this - when they moved him to the 2, he's a better passer than most 2 guards. But when he played the point, he was tentative and struggled mightily to balance getting his own shot vs. getting the team in the offense, which usually resulted in neither occurring.

KU's offense really took off 2 years ago when they moved Chalmers off the ball and let Sherron Collins - who is a shoot first PG himself - run the point.

Good enough for me. (And thanks for the response.) That helps put things in perspective. Hill may need some work learning the point, but it sounds like Chalmers might not be cut out for it. Our opinion of the draft doesn't really matter, but it helps to understand.

I'd still like to have Chalmers' point production, but this is the Spurs we're talking about. Hill's defense and rebounding are what will get him minutes, and those look pretty solid. His PG education isn't really going to start until he gets into camp with the rest of the Spurs players. I'd still like to see them play him at the 2 a little bit in this summer league, for his sake.



There are published reports that Boston had promised to select Hill if he got past the Spurs at 26.

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2008/07/13/not_one_to_simmer/?page=2

Yeah, but there were published reports that we were going to pick Batum at 26, if he was available. (Batum said so himself in an interview.) And Hill said that the Spurs told him they were going to pick him at 26. One of them would have been wrong.

I never thought the C's would have passed up CDR/Chalmers/Giddens if they were on the board. But even if that's true, it does look like the Spurs would have had to trade up in the second round to get Hill. That would have cost them Hairston or Gist, or both. Like I said, my opinion doesn't mean anything, but we're still the people who buy tickets. The perspective helps.

[ElNono]

Oh STFU already.

I've seen enough of your emo BS and am sick of it.

Slit the wrists and stop posting and get it over with.


Fuck you and your shitty posts. How about you bring some substance to the topic instead of criticizing my opinions. If you don't like to read my posts, just put me on fucking ignore and stop whining like a little bitch.



No one said you HAD to agree with the FO or any other BS.

But people like you labeling the guy a bust and saying he sucks the FO is idiots for drafting him is the BS.

WTF? Where did I criticize the FO for drafting him? Where did I label him a bust? Is this the same little world in your head where Iran has nukes?
Stop making shit up.



How about giving the kid some time against REAL NBA competition, some regular season games, maybe even,GASP!!! A FULL SEASON!!
OH NOES!!!

STFU already you little piss ant.

He's not ready for real NBA competition. He's barely ready for the competition he's facing right now. He's obviously trying to learn a new position, and that takes a lot of work and time. Drill it in your fucking head: My point is that unless he improves by leaps and bounds (which I would really welcome, but I seriously doubt will be the case), he's not going to have an impact on our team next season.

If you want to comment about Hill, fine. If you want to bitch about my posts, go to the fucking Troll forum, where those posts belong.

[Spur-Addict]

I have to disagree with you. He was a solid PG at that point, that could run an offense through Tim Duncan. He did not have a jumper then and was relatively simple to stop being that he could only drive (hence running 4 down almost every time). He still had major disappearing issues during the playoffs, and he regularly had meetings with Pop's wrath. He was solid. It took him 3 more years after that to develop a jumper and be an All-Star (what I can consider outstanding). As far as being a starter, well, he pretty much was since the get go. That doesn't mean he was solid. Without a Speedy Claxton we don't win in '03.


It took a Tony Parker who already played professionally in France and played PG all his life, about 3 years to become a solid PG under Pop's wing. I would be greatly surprised (and glad), if Hill can be a decent backup by the end of the season.


Now there I disagree. It took TP three years to become an outstanding, starting point guard on the best team in the NBA. Hill doesn't need to live up to that this season. We already have a Tony Parker.

If Hill could get to the point that he can distribute the ball adequatly, without having to think about it, and maybe get to the line some when he's backing up Parker, it would be enough. His quickness, rebounding, and defense would make him preferable to Vaughn in that spot.

The question is, can he run the point this season without having to think about it? At the NBA level, a little bit of hesitation can make a good decision look like a bad one. It's a lot to ask from a guy who was a 2 in college.


http://www.nba.com/playerfile/tony_parker/career_stats.html

[Spurs Brazil]

It looks like the article was written before yesterday's game.

I know. That's why I think Monroe sucks. He wrote nothing about yesterday game

[Brutalis]

Fuck you and your shitty posts. How about you bring some substance to the topic instead of criticizing my opinions. If you don't like to read my posts, just put me on fucking ignore and stop whining like a little bitch.


WTF? Where did I criticize the FO for drafting him? Where did I label him a bust? Is this the same little world in your head where Iran has nukes?
Stop making shit up.



He's not ready for real NBA competition. He's barely ready for the competition he's facing right now. He's obviously trying to learn a new position, and that takes a lot of work and time. Drill it in your fucking head: My point is that unless he improves by leaps and bounds (which I would really welcome, but I seriously doubt will be the case), he's not going to have an impact on our team next season.

If you want to comment about Hill, fine. If you want to bitch about my posts, go to the fucking Troll forum, where those posts belong.

He is narcissistic. Ignore it.

[underdawg]

One last comment about the Spurs draft. Making a less-than-totally-positive observation about Hill doesn't equate to saying that he is hopeless, or that the Spurs FO are incompetent.

I thought the Spurs could have taken Chalmers or CDR at 26, and still gotten Hill in the second round. We'll never know, but in the article posted, Lever says differently - that someone would have taken Hill before our second pick. If that was true, then it's a lot harder to argue with taking Hill, since they were obviously sold on him as a person as well as a player.

The other thing is that even IF they had managed to get Hill with their second pick, they wouldn't have gotten either Gist or Hairston. And either one of those guys (right now it looks more like Gist) could balance the equation.

Even if Hill is a little less than Chalmers this season, but Gist is able to bring it off the bench, it will have been a good draft. Because as much as we need a backup PG, we also need some energy and toughness off the bench. If we get that from a 45 or 57 pick, the FO deserves some applause.

Well said - it almost looks like our Front Office knows what they're doing.