Would you trade George Hill for Aaron Brooks?

[DaDakota]

I was curious? They are different types of players, AB is a scoring PG like Tony Parker....but with range.

Would you guys trade Hill for AB?

DD

[DesignatedT]

i dont think so. as much as AB is a great player there might be more upside with George.. IMO

but thats tough.

[DaDakota]

I know, Hill is a nice player, but AB is too, they are just two different types of players.

AB is a 20ppg player now and his assist totals are going up...heck, he had no one to pass to in the first half of the year.

Hill looks good too....I like his defense, but how is his shooting?

DD

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Hell
Fucking
No

[jestersmash]

Hill is the future successor of Parker's place in the "big 3." DeJuan Blair unfortunately does not have the size to be the successor of Duncan. I guess he doesn't have the ACLs either...

We need Ricky Rubio here, he'd be perfect as the future successor for Ginobili's spot in the big 3.

[Buddy Holly]

Where's the hell no option?

[Buddy Holly]

I know, Hill is a nice player, but AB is too, they are just two different types of players.

AB is a 20ppg player now and his assist totals are going up...heck, he had no one to pass to in the first half of the year.

Hill looks good too....I like his defense, but how is his shooting?

DD

If there were no Duncan or Manu or Jefferson or Parker, Hill would be a 20+ ppg player right now as well.

[Stringer_Bell]

I'll take Hill's defense and efficiency over Brooks scoring 20 per game.

[DesignatedT]

I know, Hill is a nice player, but AB is too, they are just two different types of players.

AB is a 20ppg player now and his assist totals are going up...heck, he had no one to pass to in the first half of the year.

Hill looks good too....I like his defense, but how is his shooting?

DD

hes shooting 40% from 3 pt land on the year. i know brooks can hit the 3 ball. hill is by far the superior defender.

[arodz]

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHell NO!!!

[TDMVPDPOY]

does aaron brooks even have his own nude pics upload to the net like ghill3? then no

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Aaron Brooks looks like an emaciated retarded half brother of Keenan Ivory Wayans.

[8FOR!3]

You couldn't give me Martin and Scola for him. You can keep your bottle Rockets.

[Juanobili]

nah

[Xevious]

does aaron brooks even have his own nude pics upload to the net like ghill3? then no
:lol

[L.I.T]

You couldn't give me Martin and Scola for him. You can keep your bottle Rockets.

I hope that's a joke. My sarcasm meter has been the fritz lately.

But anyway, I wouldn't trade Hill for AB at this point. AB is a great offensive player and can score in bunches. But, his assist levels leave much to be desired and his isn't much of a defender. Hill will never be a top-notch facilitator, but he has more upside than AB in that category and definitely has the ability to be a far superior defender (even if he is inconsistent at this point).

Hill has the ability to be a Hersey Hawkins-esque two way player, while AB will probably top out as a volume/explosive scorer.

If anything AB's future might be as a serious scoring sixth man in the Jason Terry mold.

[TDMVPDPOY]

ghill3 is the second coming of gary payton without the loudmouth and post game....

[Refocus]

Aaron Brooks is a straight up baller.. but we have Parker already so I'm cool with having Hill.

[noob cake]

I would do it in a second as Rockets fan. Brooks is NOT a point guard and constantly gets raped on defense.

[Blackjack]

Big ol' :td

[Xevious]

I would do it in a second as Rockets fan. Brooks is NOT a point guard and constantly gets raped on defense.
Hill isn't a PG either. And though he's a good defender and has long arms, he's pretty under-sized for a SG. That said, I'd rather have Hill than Brooks.

[noob cake]

Hill isn't a PG either. And though he's a good defender and has long arms, he's pretty under-sized for a SG. That said, I'd rather have Hill than Brooks.

I'll take a bigger (albeit worse shooting) SG who can play defense over Brooks any day.

[NFGIII]

I'll take Hill's defense and efficiency over Brooks scoring 20 per game.

Exactly. He's a more overall player than Brooks. When getting regular minutes Hillcan score but it's his D that makes him a much more valuable player than Brooks.


I would do it in a second as Rockets fan. Brooks is NOT a point guard and constantly gets raped on defense.

He's a SG in an undersized body. If you could get a legit PG then he would be a valuable piece coming off the bench. 2nd units always needs instant scoring to be effective. Or he could be interchangeable with Lowry but as of now the Rockets really don't have a legit starting PG. I think Brooks would feel better if that responsibility was given to someone else.

[kaji157]

If i could i would trade Tony Parker for Brooks straight up if we were to rebuild, they are similar and i think Hill-Brooks would be a heck of a backcourt.
But only if we were to trade all the Big 3.

I see Hill more as the Manu successor than Parker´s.

[bigdog]

Brooks is a nice player, but Hill has more potential as an all-around player than Brooks. Brooks is a better shooter, but Hill is, in my opinion, a better finisher around the rim. I also think that both players aren't true PG's, but Hill IMO has better PG skills. Hell, I think Hill could be a 20 ppg scorer even with Duncan, RJ, Manu, and Parker in there.

All in all, I vote a Hell No.

[kaji157]

I know, Hill is a nice player, but AB is too, they are just two different types of players.

AB is a 20ppg player now and his assist totals are going up...heck, he had no one to pass to in the first half of the year.

Hill looks good too....I like his defense, but how is his shooting?

DD

I agree, i think right now Brooks is the better shooter, passer and penetrator, and from what i´ve seen he will improve a little bit more, mainly on finishing at the rim where he is yet to find a good shoot to take advatage of his speed (consistent floater or lyups), he has a great JS by the way.

But i also think Brooks has matured a lot more out of necessity than Hill and Hill has a lot of room to improve also given his heigh advantage as a PG.

I think defense is some of the thoughest things to teach and this is why i would keep Hill over Brooks for this team.

The Rox wouldn´t even be near the PO if they had Hill instead of Brooks.

[sook]

homerism at its finest.

Hill is a nice fluky player that has his moments, good defender and nice sized dick i might add.


But I guess Trevor Ariza is better than Manu, and Scola > TD also right :lol

[sook]

Brooks has started for 1 NBA SEASON. Thats it, he's actually only played 2, and he had to do a lot of it with Hayes, brickattier, and Brikiza.

[jimo2305]

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/37704/09hill.jpg

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/291/1510570741.jpg

[xellos88330]

Didn't vote. There is no HELL NO option.

[jimo2305]

homerism at its finest.

Hill is a nice fluky player that has his moments, good defender and nice sized dick i might add.


But I guess Trevor Ariza is better than Manu, and Scola > TD also right :lol

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/31/f53sle_2.gif

[sook]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/31/f53sle_2.gif

Don't act like you haven't seen it.


:downspin:

[spursbird]

Surely not. AB's FG is too low and as he has speed, he still keeps shooting, shooting, shooting again and again.

[WalterBenitez]

George Hill is an interesting prospect for SAS' roster, in some games he is showing maturity an excellent handling, he also started to have a good shot sellection.

I'd love to see a balanced minutes among TP, Manu, George as PG.

For the record I wouldn't make business with those reds :nope

[tdunk21]

nope....coz brooks cant play defense like hill does......

[stéphane]

Tony's still fairly young so Georges adds something else in a very interesting guard rotation of Manu, Tony and him. AB would be quite redundant with Tony.

[Spursone]

HELL TO THE NO!:downspin:

[urunobili]

I prefer a hard nosed Defender.... so how about NO.. :wakeup

[TJastal]

If Brooks can guard Kevin Durant effectively then sure.

[ohmwrecker]

I see Hill more as the Manu successor than Parker´s.

There is no Manu successor.

Hill has a higher ceiling than brooks. He is just a better all around player than Brooks. Brooks is quick and can score in bunches, but he doesn't have the defensive potential of Hill and Hill is going to improve in his deficient areas because he is a hard worker. Whoever made the Gary Payton comparison is spot on.

[lefty]

Hill

More athletic, way better defensively

[Duncanoypi]

Hilllllllllllllllllllll No!

[JR3]

Hill's ability on Defense and overall potential are far better.

[DaDakota]

Actually I asked this incorrectly, I was meaning as your starting PG.

Taking Parker out of the equation, would you rather have Hill or Brooks?

DD

[legend of united]

Aaron Brooks is better than hill but we want hill

[Horry For 3!]

Hill will be a better player than Brooks. I think Hill also has more upside.

[kaji157]

Actually I asked this incorrectly, I was meaning as your starting PG.

Taking Parker out of the equation, would you rather have Hill or Brooks?

DD

Hill, ie.. Manu, and Hill plays the SG on offense.

[lennyalderette]

i honestly have been saying this since last year, look up my freaking post, hill is going to be way better than parker and should be able to replace parker by nextr season, sounds crazy but his growth is amazing and if given more minutes will become alot better than parker, he plays on both sides of the court unlike tp

[ohmwrecker]

Aaron Brooks is better than hill but we want hill

Huh?!

[ohmwrecker]

Hill will be a better player than Brooks. I think Hill also has more upside.

Redundant much?

[lennyalderette]

oh and i think AB has good character i like the kid, but george thrill has soo much potential, with even a better attitude , and the guy can dunk all day if he wanted to, hes not going balls out yet. i know he will be replacing TP!! hes way faster than daron williams and plays better D than him so this kid is going big places. and so that leads me to say "hell to the no"

[Waps1980]

Hill has been lucky to have TP and Manu to look up to learn things from.
You can see it in the way he plays.
Hill will be the future of the Spurs

[Brazil]

^I'm not sure Hill will be the future of the spurs or spurs are in trouble tbh.

Anyway I've noticed he improved a lot his layups (TP example) and developed some balls and fire (Manu example)

[it's me]

Lol @ the lone Rocket fan and his various trolls voting yes.

[DJB]

GH3 is a much more complete player than AB and even TP... hell no.

[LoneStarState'sPride]

Fuck no!

Hell, I'd take Hill over Parker and Brooks. Only his 2nd season, and he has so much more room to grow.

[DPG21920]

GH3 is a much more complete player than AB and even TP... hell no.


Fuck no!

Hell, I'd take Hill over Parker and Brooks. Only his 2nd season, and he has so much more room to grow.

What?

[LoneStarState'sPride]

What?

Parker has hit his ceiling (and I love me some TP, btw), Brooks is playing near his.

Hill is only in year 2, and he's already shown he's competent enough to shoulder much of the burden of running point for a perennial contender like SA. The upside for him, especially with him playing with Tony, is ridiculous.

[FeZZy]

eh...

[HarlemHeat37]

George Hill is incredibly overrated here, and I say this as a big fan of his..

[SpursRulez4eVeR]

hell to the fk'n no

[Spursfan092120]

Just like I said in the thread "Aaron Brooks is a monster.." Aaron Brooks is a good player, but overall, Hill is better...no...I wouldn't trade.

[Big P]

who?

[LoneStarState'sPride]

It's because Manu is on this team! How well did Hill do against the Nets when Manu was out?

If Parker was playing against the Nets, no way the Spurs would have lost that game!

Note: at no point did I ever state that Hill is better than Parker. He's not. When I said Parker's hit his ceiling, I mean that I honestly don't think he can play better than he has consistently played since '07. I'm saying Hill's got a ridiculous upside precisely because he's playing next to Parker (one of the league's premiers PG's).

And I don't know why the hell you brought up Manu--everyone knows he makes the entire team better, but last I checked, this was a discussion primarily about PGs.

[LoneStarState'sPride]

I bring up Manu, because He he opens it up for Hill . Hill isn't a great playmaker at all. We see that all the time, when Manu goes and takes his break on the bench.

I like Hill a lot, but I doubt he is ever going to considered a top 3 point guard like Tony was last year.

Tony when healthy is one of the top 3 point guards in the NBA, I doubt Hill will ever get to that level.

Yes, Hill is not a playmaker. Tony wasn't a very consistent shooter until the last couple of seasons. And Hill's defense is better than Tony's at this stage of their respective careers. And as much as Manu opens it up for Hill when he's in the game, he does the same for Tony--it's just the nature of his game.

Idk if Hill is ever going to get to Tony's level, but he has tons of potential. He's already starting to look eerily like a younger Parker on SOME of his drives to the hoop. If he can pick up just a fraction of Parker's finishing ability, and still keep his jump shot, George has a crazy high ceiling.

[sook]

hill has had some nice fluke games I'll give him that.

btw, TP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hill

[Chieflion]

hill has had some nice fluke games I'll give him that.

btw, TP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hill

sook, I will just say that each organisation would not do the trade because of their reasons.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No. He may be our best defensive player.

[George Gervin's Afro]

hill has had some nice fluke games I'll give him that.

btw, TP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hill

so how many 'fluke games' does he have to have dummy before you grant that he is a damn good player.

[sook]

so how many 'fluke games' does he have to have dummy before you grant that he is a damn good player.

I was kidding. He is a good player, but he is getting Manu Ginobili treatment when it comes to being overrated to jordan status.

[LoneStarState'sPride]

I was kidding. He is a good player, but he is getting Manu Ginobili treatment when it comes to being overrated to jordan status.

Manu Ginobili:

2001 Italian League Championship
2001 Euroleague Title
2001 Euroleague Final Four MVP
2003 NBA Title
2004 Olympic Gold Medal
2005 NBA All-Star
2005 NBA Title (1 vote shy of Finals MVP)
2007 NBA Title
2008 NBA Sixth Man of the Year Award
2008 Olympic Bronze Medal

No, he's not Jordan, but overrated? Hell no. Quite frankly, I'm glad he's not like Mike--he has his own unique game. I think his value as a team player far overshadows even his myriad personal accomplishments.

[noob cake]

Brooks >>>>> Hill in scoring

Hill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brooks in defense

I'll take that extra defense.

[exstatic]

George Hill is incredibly overrated here, and I say this as a big fan of his..

You really think Brooks is all that? I mean, it's not like we're comparing GH to CP3 and saying "no we won't make that trade".

Brooks is an ultra-quick score first lead guard, but he's a shrimp and doesn't play much D. GH is also a better long range shooter. He's 4-5 inches taller (for real) with a much bigger wingspan.

[HarlemHeat37]

You really think Brooks is all that? I mean, it's not like we're comparing GH to CP3 and saying "no we won't make that trade".

Brooks is an ultra-quick score first lead guard, but he's a shrimp and doesn't play much D. GH is also a better long range shooter. He's 4-5 inches taller (for real) with a much bigger wingspan.

I would take George Hill over him, I'm not arguing that..most of the people here are arguing like Hill is levels better than Brooks, which he clearly isn't, and a number of people here have said that he's already as good as Tony Parker, which he isn't..

[TD 21]

Hill is more versatile and a better for fit the Spurs, so I definitely wouldn't make that trade.

[Spursmania]

No.

[sook]

You really think Brooks is all that? I mean, it's not like we're comparing GH to CP3 and saying "no we won't make that trade".

Brooks is an ultra-quick score first lead guard, but he's a shrimp and doesn't play much D. GH is also a better long range shooter. He's 4-5 inches taller (for real) with a much bigger wingspan.
you are VERY wrong in believing that george hill is the better long range shooter. Aaron Brooks is the best 3 pt shooter on the team, and one of the best I have seen in a rockets uni. But its the range that makes him so good, he'll pull up for a 3 way behind the line and drain it like its nothing, almost every single game.

If it weren't from brook's shooting ability, he would be a mediocre guard. Its his shooting that has really been helping him this season, and he's shown just how good at that he is when we got martin and he could actually pass to someone who could make a shot and help him get open.

[Tmac&Luther]

This thread is a joke right. :lmao You fools actually think Hill is the better player. :lmao:rollin:lmao

And I seriously I can't believe there are people ready to toss Tony Parker in the dumpster for Hill. :lol Wake up.

[spursbird]

This thread is a joke right. :lmao You fools actually think Hill is the better player. :lmao:rollin:lmao

And I seriously I can't believe there are people ready to toss Tony Parker in the dumpster for Hill. :lol Wake up.
See the data when Rockets vs Spurs.

[Tmac&Luther]

See the data when Rockets vs Spurs.

Umm, yeah.....saw it. So what. Brooks outplayed him in most the games. You give us a big man and Houston wins the series instead of splitting it despite Yao being gone. :downspin:

Seriously what the hell are y'all smoking...especially the people who think he's already better than Parker. :rolleyes:

Again, Hill > Parker and Brooks = :lmao (aka absolute laughter)

[spursbird]

Umm, yeah.....saw it. So what. Brooks outplayed him in most the games. You give us a big man and Houston wins the series instead of splitting it despite Yao being gone. :downspin:

Seriously what the hell are y'all smoking...especially the people who think he's already better than Parker. :rolleyes:

Again, Hill > Parker and Brooks = :lmao (aka absolute laughter)
So? You got Scola from us, and still keep losing and losing. And I promise, with Yao slowing down the speed, AB's score would get straight down.

[Bruno]

Right now, Brooks is better than Hill and it isn't even close.

However, I wouldn't trade Hill for him for two reasons:
First, Spurs have Parker and Hill is way better fit to play alongside Parker than Brooks is.
Second, Hill can still improve. He maybe will never be as good as Brooks currently is but he should get closer to Brooks' level.

[Tmac&Luther]

So? You got Scola from us, and still keep losing and losing. And I promise, with Yao slowing down the speed, AB's score would get straight down.


:rollin Who the hell was talking about Scola and Yao being out there would've changed the outlook of alot of games. Seriously do you honestly think is Duncan had to sit out the entire year that George Hill would've lead y'all to a winning record? (:lmao at the "keep losing and losing" comment.....we're down all kinds of players and have only lost 8 more games than y'all)

:rolleyes This poll result is homerism at it's absolute finest.

Again like I said above...Hill > Parker and Brooks = :lmao (aka absolute laughter)

[Muser]

you are VERY wrong in believing that george hill is the better long range shooter. Aaron Brooks is the best 3 pt shooter on the team, and one of the best I have seen in a rockets uni. But its the range that makes him so good, he'll pull up for a 3 way behind the line and drain it like its nothing, almost every single game.

If it weren't from brook's shooting ability, he would be a mediocre guard. Its his shooting that has really been helping him this season, and he's shown just how good at that he is when we got martin and he could actually pass to someone who could make a shot and help him get open.

His D is terrible. Not saying Hill > Brooks, but his D is pretty bad.

[Tmac&Luther]

Right now, Brooks is better than Hill and it isn't even close.

However, I wouldn't trade Hill for him for two reasons:
First, Spurs have Parker and Hill is way better fit to play alongside Parker than Brooks is.
Second, Hill can still improve. He maybe will never be as good as Brooks currently is but he should get closer to Brooks' level.

Umm, Brooks is only 25...only about a year older than Hill...and he's playing his first real full year as the starting PG. To act like he can't improve is nieve at best.....especially since that's all he's done over the last couple of weeks.

[Tmac&Luther]

His D is terrible. Not saying Hill > Brooks, but his D is pretty bad.

Hill's defense would be pretty bad too if he didn't have Duncan playing behind him :rolleyes

For Christ's sakes our best big man is a 6'6 center with a bum knee.

[Tmac&Luther]

FACT.

If Morey was stupid enough to offer Brooks for Hill straight up, your G.M. would trip over himself running across the room and he wouldn't be able to sign on the bottom line fast enough. Luckily Morey would never be that stupid.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I was kidding. He is a good player, but he is getting Manu Ginobili treatment when it comes to being overrated to jordan status.

My bad. I am the dummy in this case..

[George Gervin's Afro]

FACT.

If Morey was stupid enough to offer Brooks for Hill straight up, your G.M. would trip over himself running across the room and he wouldn't be able to sign on the bottom line fast enough. Luckily Morey would never be that stupid.

:lmao


right..the spurs love one dimensinal players..good call..

[Tmac&Luther]

:lmao


right..the spurs love one dimensinal players..good call..

:lol Really!, because that's all they've been trading for recently. Richard Jefferson says high. How about the "red rocket" :rollin

Last time I checked Houston didn't have any defensive problems when they had a true "big man" in the paint.

[George Gervin's Afro]

:lol Really!, because that's all they've been trading for recently. Richard Jefferson says high. How about the "red rocket" :rollin

Last time I checked Houston didn't have any defensive problems when they had a true "big man" in the paint.

last time i checked houston sucked.. great defense you guys have! We'll stick with an all around good player and you guys can have your 5'8 shooting guard..:toast

[Spursfanfromafar]

the thing with the Houston Rockets and their supporters is that they make a super hullaballoo about how their squad is a bunch of no-namers who have done so well despite their low salaries and little hype about them generally.

What I find with such hype about the Rockets' "Moneyball" is that they have done nothing great - they weren't even close to making the playoffs finally and some of the signees in the offseason were poor duds- David Anderson and Trevor Ariza for e.g. So for all the tom-tomming of Daryl Morey, their squad has done nothing much at all. You could cut some slack for Yao's injury; but I guess everyone cuts too much slack with them.

And by the way, George Hill has more upside than Aaron Brooks. Brooks is a speedster and a tough offense guy, but Hill with his long arms can be a two way threat that Brooks won't be.

[Lars]

. You could cut some slack for Yao's injury


Appreciate the slack you gave us for our franchise player, who anchors our entire offense and defense, being out for the entire season. :lol

[ATRAIN]

NO but ill trade Parker for Scola and Brooks :)

[rascal]

No Hill is a future allstar in the league.

[Tmac&Luther]

No Hill is a future allstar in the league.

:lol

[Leetonidas]

What sane Spurs fan would trade Hill for Brooks? Only Rocket homers are loling at this because they really think Brooks is better. While I will admit he is probably a better scorer and ball handler right now, that's about all that he is better than Hill at. George is longer, stronger, taller, a waaaaaay better defensive player, and he's no offensive slouch himself. I'm sorry, but undersized scoring guards are a dime a dozen in this league. Tough-nosed, hard-working 6'3" combo guards with the ability to run point and play very good defense as well as rebound the ball are a lot harder to find.

[Tmac&Luther]

the thing with the Houston Rockets and their supporters is that they make a super hullaballoo about how their squad is a bunch of no-namers who have done so well despite their low salaries and little hype about them generally.

What I find with such hype about the Rockets' "Moneyball" is that they have done nothing great - they weren't even close to making the playoffs finally and some of the signees in the offseason were poor duds- David Anderson and Trevor Ariza for e.g. So for all the tom-tomming of Daryl Morey, their squad has done nothing much at all. You could cut some slack for Yao's injury; but I guess everyone cuts too much slack with them.

And by the way, George Hill has more upside than Aaron Brooks. Brooks is a speedster and a tough offense guy, but Hill with his long arms can be a two way threat that Brooks won't be.

:rollin We weren't supposed to do shit this year. Hell we weren't even supposed to have a winning record this year and here we sit above .500 and only 8 games behind your ass, who was supposed to compete for a freaking title after the great "Richard Jefferson trade" :rolleyes You really want to talk about hype and letdowns. :lmao

Think about it, y'all couldn't really pull away from us in a year where y'all were supposed to be one of the best teams in the leauge and your team is getting old as dirt, Duncan is getting old......who do you really think is going to have the better year next year?

[Tmac&Luther]

What sane Spurs fan would trade Hill for Brooks? Only Rocket homers are loling at this because they really think Brooks is better. While I will admit he is probably a better scorer and ball handler right now, that's about all that he is better than Hill at. George is longer, stronger, taller, a waaaaaay better defensive player, and he's no offensive slouch himself. I'm sorry, but undersized scoring guards are a dime a dozen in this league. Tough-nosed, hard-working 6'3" combo guards with the ability to run point and play very good defense as well as rebound the ball are a lot harder to find.

Oh so now all Brooks is, is a undersized SG......but Hill is a "combo guard" :rolleyes the blatant homerism here is deafening. Stop listening to Butt cake.....Brooks is easily out assisting Hill. If anything Hill is a SG that y'all are trying to force to play point.

[DPG21920]

8 games is a pretty huge gap.

[Leetonidas]

Oh so now all Brooks is, is a undersized SG......but Hill is a "combo guard" :rolleyes the blatant homerism here is deafening. Stop listening to Butt cake.....Brooks is easily out assisting Hill. If anything Hill is a SG that y'all are trying to force to play point.

Uh I never said he was an undersized SG, I said he was an undersized SCORING GUARD. SG = Shooting Guard. And yeah Hill is a SG but he has shown NUMEROUS times this year and last that he is fully capable of leading a talented team as the point guard.

Defense >>>>>>>>> Dishing assists and shooting threes (which Hill can shoot just fine anyway).

Seriously, I can't believe you Rockettes fans are getting all ass hurt because we don't want Brooks. We already have a better version of him in Parker, minus the three point shot. And our team values a players' defense brah, it's not all about how well you can shoot the three or score, because the Spurs are fine in that department.

And remember that Brooks is doing this as the #1 option on his shitty team while Hill easily #4 or even #5 depending on how well Jefferson/Blair/whoever is playing.

[spursbird]

:rollin We weren't supposed to do shit this year. Hell we weren't even supposed to have a winning record this year and here we sit above .500 and only 8 games behind your ass, who was supposed to compete for a freaking title after the great "Richard Jefferson trade" :rolleyes You really want to talk about hype and letdowns. :lmao

Think about it, y'all couldn't really pull away from us in a year where y'all were supposed to be one of the best teams in the leauge and your team is getting old as dirt, Duncan is getting old......who do you really think is going to have the better year next year?
Yeah, and you made a great trade acquring a skinny guard who can't defend, often hurt, shoot at a low FG%, with a large contract.
p.s. His way of shooting is really awkward.

[Blackjack]

With a username like Tmac&Luther ... I'm going to have to trust his judgment on talent; that dude can scout.

[Spursfanfromafar]

:rollin We weren't supposed to do shit this year. Hell we weren't even supposed to have a winning record this year and here we sit above .500 and only 8 games behind your ass, who was supposed to compete for a freaking title after the great "Richard Jefferson trade" :rolleyes You really want to talk about hype and letdowns. :lmao

Think about it, y'all couldn't really pull away from us in a year where y'all were supposed to be one of the best teams in the leauge and your team is getting old as dirt, Duncan is getting old......who do you really think is going to have the better year next year?

Dude. The Spurs won 4 championships in the last 12 years and how many times in those dozen years did they pay luxury tax? eh?

And the Spurs despite RJ's underperformance is going to the playoffs and are expected to create a lot of noise based on their Febraury-March performance. Heck, I have not found any contender ruling out the Spurs not winning the championship as yet.

And what about the Rockets, eh? The expectations were indeed low and their performance was mediocre. Whats there to crow about the Rockets this season eh? Your "Dork Elvis" got you the 10th spot with the addition of ...drum roll ... Trevor Ariza and David Anderson.

And Yao or not, the best you managed with your Franchise-1 from China and Franchise-2 (T-Mac) was second round (and don't even let me start the tale of Stevie "Franchise"). So stop crowing, dude.

The Spurs in the meantime have never missed the playoffs in more than a dozen years, have had the best record in PROFESSIONAL SPORTS and have contended for a championship for years now.

So yeah, if they are in line to win "only" 50-52 games, it translates to "disappointing" for Spurs Fans. Contrast that with the Rockets :).

And yeah again, Brooks is good enough to lead you to 10th place only next season :) George Hill (if Manu comes back) will keep us in the championship hunt for next year and more.

[exstatic]

you are VERY wrong in believing that george hill is the better long range shooter. Aaron Brooks is the best 3 pt shooter on the team, and one of the best I have seen in a rockets uni. But its the range that makes him so good, he'll pull up for a 3 way behind the line and drain it like its nothing, almost every single game.

If it weren't from brook's shooting ability, he would be a mediocre guard. Its his shooting that has really been helping him this season, and he's shown just how good at that he is when we got martin and he could actually pass to someone who could make a shot and help him get open.

??? Ball don't lie. I didn't say Brooks was shitty, just that Hill is better.

.398 > .388

[noob cake]

??? Ball don't lie. I didn't say Brooks was shitty, just that Hill is better.

.398 > .388

I would have to disagree with you on that. Brooks is easily the best three point chucker in the league. He is currently leading the league in three pointer made. I give him props for taking multiple garbage three pointers every single game (and still making 38.8% of them).

[TDMVPDPOY]

wtf are rocketfans starting to become like those fans from shitty teams with alot of talent but outside of the window they are crap if you try and slot them onto another team....

[exstatic]

I would have to disagree with you on that. Brooks is easily the best three point chucker in the league. He is currently leading the league in three pointer made. I give him props for taking multiple garbage three pointers every single game (and still making 38.8% of them).

.398 > .388

Fans of bad teams often think volume shooters are something special, but they aren't. Being a chucker doesn't make you a better shooter. It just makes you a chucker.

[kamikazi_player]

I'd trade Hill for Brooks in a heartbeat.

[senorglory]

What would we do with both Parker and Brooks? Not enough size to play them side by side.

[Harry Callahan]

Brooks is a smallish chucker who gets out of control. He's a nice player, but Hill is bigger and stronger with the ability to D up on bigger players with his long arms. He has done a nice job in Tony's absence. Sucks that the old man fisher did the only thing he could do to defend Hill. Hurt him.

[Tmac&Luther]

Again...:lmao At people who actually think Hill is better or will be better than Aaron Brooks in the long run. Do y'all actually think Hill would lead this depleated Rockets team to a winning record out west?

Hill is a good player, but he is no Aaron Brooks. Brooks has come into his own the season and he's STILL IMPROVING as each game goes on. His PG skills have improved by leaps and bounds over the last couple of months. "Butt Cake" cake even make a argument that Lowry is the better PG.

I wasn't trying to be rude when I made it seam so absurd, but it is...Y'all can keep Hill. It's just a shame Brooks got nicked up and had to check out for a huge stretch in a game that was well decided, he was putting on the full display tonight.

[Nathan Explosion]

If Brooks brought his standup routine with him, I'd think about it.

[Tmac&Luther]

If Brooks brought his standup routine with him, I'd think about it.

There isn't a G.M. in this league that would take Hill over Brooks right now or in the future...except the cheap ones that don't want to hand out a large contract. (The Suns franchise would probably take Hill) Yet 90% of Spurs fans would......something screams of "homerism" here.

[Nathan Explosion]

Again...:lmao At people who actually think Hill is better or will be better than Aaron Brooks in the long run. Do y'all actually think Hill would lead this depleated Rockets team to a winning record out west?

Hill is a good player, but he is no Aaron Brooks. Brooks has come into his own the season and he's STILL IMPROVING as each game goes on. His PG skills have improved by leaps and bounds over the last couple of months. "Butt Cake" cake even make a argument that Lowry is the better PG.

I wasn't trying to be rude when I made it seam so absurd, but it is...Y'all can keep Hill. It's just a shame Brooks got nicked up and had to check out for a huge stretch in a game that was well decided, he was putting on the full display tonight.

In Hill's defense, with him at the helm, the Spurs have beaten 4 division leaders in the past 2 weeks. Brooks' team is eliminated from the playoffs. The Rockets have some nice players with them. We all know what the posters here think of Scola. He's the second coming of Duncan if you read some of the more outrageous posts here.

Brooks can't defend bigger guards like Hill can. We already have a smallish guard (in size not height) in Parker. Having Brooks as his backup wouldn't really help the Spurs. Hill provides more versatility to the lineup.

[Nathan Explosion]

There isn't a G.M. in this league that would take Hill over Brooks right now or in the future...except the cheap ones that don't want to hand out a large contract. (The Suns franchise would probably take Hill) Yet 90% of Spurs fans would......something screams of "homerism" here.

Us homers are probably as blind as Stevie Wonder. "Can't Stevie have a peek? Just one peek? Just a 'Ugh, Ugh'?"

[DPG21920]

Brooks is better than Hill now, but Rocket fan overrates Brooks.

[Tmac&Luther]

In Hill's defense, with him at the helm, the Spurs have beaten 4 division leaders in the past 2 weeks. Brooks' team is eliminated from the playoffs. The Rockets have some nice players with them. We all know what the posters here think of Scola. He's the second coming of Duncan if you read some of the more outrageous posts here.

Brooks can't defend bigger guards like Hill can. We already have a smallish guard (in size not height) in Parker. Having Brooks as his backup wouldn't really help the Spurs. Hill provides more versatility to the lineup.

Are you really going to use "team success" here. Or try to pimp Scola now. This is a team that lost their #1 scorer, dealt their other "franchise player" during the offseason, traded their go to 4th quarter scorer mid season (who led the entire league in points scored in the 4th quarter), had to work in another guy who was going to be a big piece of the offense and took alot of shots...(aka, that's ALOT to deal with during one season, Brooks went from being a role player to being handed the keys of the franchise in ONE season, there aren't alot of players that can handle that...I'm speaking to you Trever "the bum" Ariza) And you're really going to give all the credit for a role player/fringe at best starter for being 8.5 games over another starter with all of the above to deal with.

Do you honestly think the Spurs wouldn't be where they are or even (which would probably be reality) with Arron Brooks. Hill plays with good big men, and one of the best bigs in the league, that makes the game easy for him. Brooks does what he does while facing a crap load of defensive attention.

[Tmac&Luther]

Brooks is better than Hill now, but Rocket fan overrates Brooks.

Umm how? Nobody said he was Deron Williams or Chris Paul level.....just better than Hill and will be better than Hill. I call that rating him exactly where he is.

A poll that has 90% of fans wanting to take Hill over Brooks is the definition of "overrating a player".

[Tmac&Luther]

And remember that Brooks is doing this as the #1 option on his shitty team while Hill easily #4 or even #5 depending on how well Jefferson/Blair/whoever is playing.

Again, right now SA Spurs only 8.5 games ahead.....it's not like Houston sucked total ass. And how was Brooks being a #1 option a knock against him? Do you realize what a player has to deal with and the attention he gets as a #1 option. PLENTY OF PLAYERS can be a 4 or 5 (Again you Trever, but you weren't even that were you), only a few can be a #1 or even a #2 option....regardless on what caliber of team they play on.

[DPG21920]

Umm how? Nobody said he was Deron Williams or Chris Paul level.....just better than Hill and will be better than Hill. I call that rating him exactly where he is.

A poll that has 90% of fans wanting to take Hill over Brooks is the definition of "overrating a player".

Why

[OrEmuN]

Umm how? Nobody said he was Deron Williams or Chris Paul level.....just better than Hill and will be better than Hill. I call that rating him exactly where he is.

A poll that has 90% of fans wanting to take Hill over Brooks is the definition of "overrating a player".

Rubbish ... the poll just shows that Spurs fans prefer not trading Hill over Brooks and does not define anything else. Anything else (e.g overating Hill) is just inferrence.

We need Hill for the all-round game more than scoring. Rockets has its own defensive stopper in Battier and needs Brooks to score and as such, Brooks is a better fit in Houston.

By saying we do not want to trade Hill over Brooks says nothing abt which player is better, just that both fits better with the respective teams

[Tmac&Luther]

Why

Brooks has BETTER playmaking ability. He's the better athlete, has shown better PG skills, and is the MORE THAN BETTER ALL around offensive player.

Defensive skills at the PG position is OVERBLOWN. Would Hill be this great defensive player without the big man behind him. That's what makes a good defense.......a good big man. For christ's sakes our center is 6'6. :rolleyes Hill wouldn't be the defensive player y'all think he is with our shot blocking presence (what presence) either.

I'll ALWAYS take the better playmaker at that position and that is why Hill will never be better than Brooks. With Yao or a center like Yao (aka Duncan) all of a sudden Brooks gets better on defense.....go figure. Good defenses have a good big man.

[DPG21920]

Just as a basis for comparison:

Brooks per 36 minute numbers:

19.7 PTS, 43% FG, 39% 3PT, 82% FT, 2.7 REB, 5.4 AST, .9 STL, .2 BLK, 2.9 TO

Hill per 36 minute numbers:

15.2 PTS, 47% FG, 39% 3PT, 77% FT, 3.3 REB, 3.6 AST, 1.1 STL, .4 BLK, 1.6 TO

So Hill seems to be the more efficient player, better rebounder, certainly a better defender and takes care of the ball. He is not a great play maker, but decent. Brooks seems to be a more proficient scorer, but not more efficient.

[DPG21920]

You are overstating Brooks play making. He is better than Hill, but not all that great in that regard.

[Tmac&Luther]

Rubbish ... the poll just shows that Spurs fans prefer not trading Hill over Brooks and does not define anything else. Anything else (e.g overating Hill) is just inferrence.

We need Hill for the all-round game more than scoring. Rockets has its own defensive stopper in Battier and needs Brooks to score and as such, Brooks is a better fit in Houston.

By saying we do not want to trade Hill over Brooks says nothing abt which player is better, just that both fits better with the respective teams

read above

LOL, Hill is NOT a "defensive stopper". :lmao He's just better than Brooks (and alot of that has to do with the big man that plays behind him...the guy isn't Gary Payton here folks), he's not even considered a "defensive stopper". LOL at the comparison to Battier.

[Tmac&Luther]

You are overstating Brooks play making. He is better than Hill, but not all that great in that regard.

Really...

Over the last month he's making great passes, hitting game winning shots/clutch shots, and showing the ability to hit crazy shots at will.....thats called "PLAYMAKING"

Playmaking isn't just about assists here, Brooks is a playmaking, his only problem is consistency which is where he's getting better.

[DPG21920]

Really...

Over the last month he's making great passes, hitting game winning shots/clutch shots, and showing the ability to hit crazy shots at will.....thats called "PLAYMAKING"

Playmaking isn't just about assists here, Brooks is a playmaking, his only problem is consistency which is where he's getting better.

Really. You are making it seem like Brooks play making is all world. Brooks play making consists mostly of getting his own shot.

[Tmac&Luther]

Just as a basis for comparison:

Brooks per 36 minute numbers:

19.7 PTS, 43% FG, 39% 3PT, 82% FT, 2.7 REB, 5.4 AST, .9 STL, .2 BLK, 2.9 TO

Hill per 36 minute numbers:

15.2 PTS, 47% FG, 39% 3PT, 77% FT, 3.3 REB, 3.6 AST, 1.1 STL, .4 BLK, 1.6 TO

So Hill seems to be the more efficient player, better rebounder, certainly a better defender and takes care of the ball. He is not a great play maker, but decent. Brooks seems to be a more proficient scorer, but not more efficient.

Umm, you left out the fact that Brooks has proven he can do that all season as a starter. Trever Ariza effect here pal. Until Hill puts up those #s as a game in and game out starter (and against teams that gameplan against him as a starter) everything is speculation.

Carl Landry as a part time player a year or so ago had a per the = LeBron James, so what are you really trying to say?

[Tmac&Luther]

Really. You are making it seem like Brooks play making is all world. Brooks play making consists mostly of getting his own shot.

NOT THE LAST MONTH. :lol Stop listening to "Butt Cake" and wake up. Even you can't deny some of the passes he made tonight....which is the passes he's been making recently. The switch is starting to flip in that aspect of his game, which is why I laughed when people said he's already maxed out his total potential.

[DPG21920]

Umm, you left out the fact that Brooks has proven he can do that all season as a starter. Trever Ariza effect here pal. Until Hill puts up those #s as a game in and game out starter (and against teams that gameplan against him as a starter) everything is speculation.

Carl Landry as a part time player a year of so agoe had a per the = LeBron James, so what are you really trying to say?

How come you can quote Brook's play making over the past month, but Hill's job as a starter against the elite over the past 16 games is not sufficient?

Those per 36 minute numbers are pretty accurate and that does not change his shooting % and turnover rate. Nor his defense. We can only go by what we have seen and in Hill's minutes as a starter last year and this year, he has performed well.

Point is, you have not seen enough to say Brooks will be better when the metrics don't agree with you.

It's easy to pull the homer card and say abstract things like "he will be better", it is a lot harder to back those things up.

[Tmac&Luther]

How come you can quote Brook's play making over the past month, but Hill's job as a starter against the elite over the past 16 games is not sufficient?

Those per 36 minute numbers are pretty accurate and that does not change his shooting % and turnover rate. Nor his defense. We can only go by what we have seen and in Hill's minutes as a starter last year and this year, he has performed well.

Point is, you have not seen enough to say Brooks will be better when the metrics don't agree with you.

It's easy to pull the homer card and say abstract things like "he will be better", it is a lot harder to back those things up.

LOL, who are you now.....Hollinger :rollin

Dude, the per doesn't work, because Hill racks up those numbers in a limited role....much like Ariza did. And I CAN pull up Brooks' play over the last month, because you dogged his PG skills which has take a noticeable up swing. He's learning the PG position....on the job training, but the guy is learning and starting to perform really well at it (remember you're the one who knocked him there.)

Also, it's not crazy to say Brooks will be the better player.....he's more athletic and the better scorer and Hill has absolutely no real advance in the passing game now. Also, please stop pimping defensive stats when Brooks had no big man backing him up.

It basically boils down to this. Do you actually think the Houston Rockets would be anywhere close to their current record with Hill as the starting PG for them. HELL NO, Hill wouldn't be able to carry the load that Brooks has been able to......the Spurs would be a BETTER team with Brooks and minus Hill, the guy would give them another go to guy and explosive playmaker.