George Hill IS a PG in this system.

[chazley]

I guess it's time for another flame-chazley thread, even though I'll probably get more support for this than I did with Mason/Bonner/Jeffries threads, so here we go:

George Hill, in the Spurs system, can and will be a PG more than a SG, next year and for the foreseeable future.

People are heavily mistaken if they think George cannot play PG on this team.

Let me ask you a question for all you people who think George isn't good enough to play PG:

If you replaced George Hill with Derek Fisher in the Lakers starting lineup, they would be much improved and would have an even better chance at a championship right (imo)? Fisher's greatest attribute is his leadership, and he can do that from the bench. My point is, George Hill, in the right system, can be a championship-caliber starting PG.

"Lakers and Spurs have two completely different systems, so your point is moot." the haters would probably say. However, I honestly don't think they're drastically different in terms of the PG position. Neither system (Spurs/Lakers) needs a guy to average 10+ assists a game. What they need is a guy to innitiate the offense, average 6-8 assists, and hit open J's, all of which Hill is capable of. The Spurs PG and the Lakers PG right now are very different. Fisher and Parker have completely different games. However, I believe a George Hill-type of PG can still be successful in this system, much in the same way Avery was (yes, I am aware that Hill and Avery are two very different players, but so are Parker/Avery, my point being different types of PG's can be successful in this system). I actually think George Hill's ability to hit the 3 and play much better defense at a variety of positions might be a much better fit than Parker potentially, depending on how much he is leaned on in the future.

Let me get this straight, first of all: I don't want Parker off of this team. In fact, the dimension he gives us as one of the best scoring penetrating PG's of possibly all-time cannot be replaced. His importance to this system is huge. At this very moment, Parker to Hill is a downgrade but over time, might be a better fit.

However, in the event we have an opportunity to trade Parker for a really good big or wing, we should be confident that we can hand over the reins to George. He needs time in the starting PG role. Our best stretch of the season came with George playing PG, people seem to forget that. Putting the ball in Ginobili's hands with George bringing it up and letting Manu initiate the offense made us VERY good with Parker out.

And Ginobili is a very big part of why George in this system playing PG can be very successful. In February-March, when Manu decided to be the best SG in the league while Parker was out, Manu got to handle the ball. We need to move back to that. I think Manu/RJ play a lot better with George running the point, and with wings like Manu and RJ playing at a high level we are a very difficult team to guard.

Duncan plays better with Parker running the point. However, I believe George can still be as good with Timmy as Tony is with Timmy. I think people underestimate how good the Parker/Duncan combo is. Their games complement each other very nicely. However, George can get to that point with Tim, but he will have to do it differently, mainly by his 3-pt shooting that doesn't include the corner and his driving ability when he cuts down the middle and off of backcuts. He also must improve his entry passes. They were subpar last season, but that was a team-wide problem, and something I expect everyone to improve on.

Post is getting long, so let's discuss it so I can respond to some of your responses.

[Pauleta14]

You're right on many points, but you forget that Manu is better with Parker next to him... (pts, ast, %...)

Kori or timvp once gave some stats about it.

He is more efficient when he has a scoring threat next to him.
He was great when Tony was out, but he can't play that way the whole 82 games + PO anymore!
I love Hill, but others teams will never see him as much of a danger than Tony is.
That changes the whole deal for opposite teams when Tony is on the floar, he creates so much space...

The best solution IMO is Tony and George in the starting 5 and Manu off the bench!
(with Pop managing minutes so that George also plays back up PG along with Manu)

[benefactor]

Sorry attention whore, I only read the first sentence. I'm sure it's a cool story though.

[Interrohater]

I think you're missing the point. It's not CAN George Hill play the point, it's SHOULD George Hill play the point. He's done a fine job at PG so far, but with the emergence of Temple, will GH become the starting SG? One of your examples actually proved, to me at least, that George should be playing SG when Manu is in to initiate the offense.

George Hill is an impressive player, considering where he came from, but methinks that he might be even more impressive in his natural role of SG.

[Bender]

Sorry attention whore, I only read the first sentence. I'm sure it's a cool story though.
I stopped after this sentence:

If you replaced George Hill with Derek Fisher in the Lakers starting lineup, they would be much improved and would have an even better chance at a championship
So Hill plays for the Lakers, and if Fisher replaced him, the Lakers would be a better team. Ok, good job of arguing his point. :lol

[Solid D]

5 posts and nary a comment about defense other than about Hill's general defensive ability versus TP. I would like to see some banter regarding George Hill's ability to defend some of the better opposing PGs.

I'm saying this to help you develop your argument. (hint: remember smaller opposing 1s such as Nash and Brooks).

[TheSullyMonster]

Neither system (Spurs/Lakers) needs a guy to average 10+ assists a game.


Considering there are only three of those guys in the league right now(per last season stats...two if you only count the playoffs), I certainly hope not!:lol

[cantthinkofanything]

5 posts and nary a comment about defense other than about Hill's general defensive ability versus TP. I would like to see some banter regarding George Hill's ability to defend some of the better opposing PGs.

I'm saying this to help you develop your argument. (hint: remember smaller opposing 1s such as Nash and Brooks).

I think this is the crux of the whole matter. IMO, the concern about Hill playing point guard doesn't have much to do on the offensive end. As many have said, you can have success without a 10+ assist guy and also without a penetrator. With Manu on the court, you get an assist guy and someone that can get to the rim.

The question I have is whether Hill's defensive issues with guards like Nash and Brooks are related to lack of experience or more to physical limiations.

[Mark in Austin]

Sorry attention whore, I only read the first sentence. I'm sure it's a cool story though.


No worries. Trust him. He is the #1 poster, after all.

[beachwood]

You're dead wrong that Hill is better than Fisher. Fisher is probably the most underrated PG in the league. He went through every top PG in the playoffs last year and held his own. Hill was utterly demolished by Nash.

[alchemist]

If you replaced George Hill with Derek Fisher in the Lakers starting lineup, they would be much improved and would have an even better chance at a championship right (imo)? Fisher's greatest attribute is his leadership, and he can do that from the bench. My point is, George Hill, in the right system, can be a championship-caliber starting PG.
:lmao

Fisher has ice in his veins, his clutchness is something you can't find in most players let alone PG's.

[Solid D]

Fisher is like the Guard version of Robert Horry. One of the smartest, cagiest, clutchest Guards in basketball today.

[chazley]

Like I said, it's my opinion that if you put George Hill into the Lakers starting lineup they would still be championship contenders. Honestly I think Fisher is the only weak spot on that team.

And yes, the biggest positive for starting Hill is his defense. Our starting backcourt would have two above average defenders in Manu/Hill, which would improve our faltering defense.

And no, last year during our February/March run, Manu was not playing PG more than George when they were on the court together. George was bringing it up and Manu initiated the offense.

[chazley]

Sorry attention whore, I only read the first sentence. I'm sure it's a cool story though.

Obv scared to respond to me cause I'll probably crush whatever he says, but responding to what you said... everytime I post something spectacular, the 80% of posters on here who are very uninformed about basketball in general bash me. Even though I keep slapping them backwards, they still try to argue my points even though I prove them wrong.

I'm always willing to change my viewpoint. If someone comes up with a good argument, I am willing to say I'm wrong.

[FkLA]

Hill isnt a PG, it doesnt matter that the Spurs view him as such. Doesnt matter that he was a back-up PG for the first 1.5 yrs of his career and that he was the Spurs starting PG during the second half and playoffs of last season. As long as Spurstalk keeps saying he isnt a PG it cant possibly be true.

Just like as long as Spurstalk dismisses the numerous rumors that clearly point towards Parker jetting after next season, they wont be true and the Spurs and Parker will magically agree to a fair extension and everyone will live happily ever after in Candyland.

ps Hill didnt get 'destroyed' by Nash anymore than the rest of the team got destroyed by the Phoenix Suns team.

[Leonard Curse]

You're right on many points, but you forget that Manu is better with Parker next to him... (pts, ast, %...)

Kori or timvp once gave some stats about it.

He is more efficient when he has a scoring threat next to him.
He was great when Tony was out, but he can't play that way the whole 82 games + PO anymore!
I love Hill, but others teams will never see him as much of a danger than Tony is.
That changes the whole deal for opposite teams when Tony is on the floar, he creates so much space...

The best solution IMO is Tony and George in the starting 5 and Manu off the bench!
(with Pop managing minutes so that George also plays back up PG along with Manu)


of course hes better with tony hes only played 5 damn games with george hill!!!! how does anyone not get that!!! if we played a whole season w/hill ill bet you that will def change. the equation is becoming too dificult and complex because of people in denial the main basis for this equation is the outcomes of games when both pointguards played the same position. George hill clearly helped us win bigger games in his SECOND YEAR! also how do you know manu cant play that way the whole time we havent tried it yet its not like were going to play him 40 minutes and it might just keep him fresh he doesnt get exhausted its usually an injury that stops him or slows him down

[Leonard Curse]

You're dead wrong that Hill is better than Fisher. Fisher is probably the most underrated PG in the league. He went through every top PG in the playoffs last year and held his own. Hill was utterly demolished by Nash.


are you kidding me they were trying to replace him, ill tell you who went and got him through every pg its a 7ft spainard a rapist and a guy addicted to jellybeans, oh and a little bit from that 7ft decaying 20 year old, thats who got fisher through rondo cant shoot worth a damn nash did well just gasol bynum and L.O were to damn big.

[EricB]

Fisher is like the Guard version of Robert Horry. One of the smartest, cagiest, clutchest Guards in basketball today.


Tis a shame he turned that deal down from the Spurs in 1999 :(

[benefactor]

Obv scared to respond to me cause I'll probably crush whatever he says, but responding to what you said... everytime I post something spectacular, the 80% of posters on here who are very uninformed about basketball in general bash me. Even though I keep slapping them backwards, they still try to argue my points even though I prove them wrong.

I'm always willing to change my viewpoint. If someone comes up with a good argument, I am willing to say I'm wrong.
:lmao.........:wakeup

[chazley]

You're dead wrong that Hill is better than Fisher. Fisher is probably the most underrated PG in the league. He went through every top PG in the playoffs last year and held his own. Hill was utterly demolished by Nash.

This is not true. Fisher has had a terrible shooting percentage the past 2 playoffs and only made up for it with 2 different very clutch games, 1 in each of his past 2 finals. Other than that, the only above-average thing he brings to a team is leadership, which I won't deny is very important at PG, especially on that Lakers team with Kobe.

[chazley]

:lmao.........:wakeup

Man you really post some quality stuff. I can see why the very smart people here at Spurstalk made you second-team allstar.

Would love to see what kind of quality your other 8700 posts have. Has to be must-read material.

[benefactor]

Man you really post some quality stuff. I can see why the very smart people here at Spurstalk made you second-team allstar.

Would love to see what kind of quality your other 8700 posts have. Has to be must-read material.
Award and post count insults. I see you are internets advanced.

[BadMotorscooter]

Hill is not better than Fisher, when all aspects of the game are taken into to account. You can make hypothetical situations with any player any other teams but its a waste of time. The Lakers have something very special and thats with Fisher at the helm. The man has what? 4 or 5 rings as a starting PG? This is an apples and oranges comparision. If you are trying to make the point that Hill is a PG, than go wwith that, but dont try and make your case by supplementing him with another player on another team.

[chazley]

Hill is not better than Fisher, when all aspects of the game are taken into to account. You can make hypothetical situations with any player any other teams but its a waste of time. The Lakers have something very special and thats with Fisher at the helm. The man has what? 4 or 5 rings as a starting PG? This is an apples and oranges comparision. If you are trying to make the point that Hill is a PG, than go wwith that, but dont try and make your case by supplementing him with another player on another team.

What 'aspects' of the game is Fisher better at than Hill, other than leadership? It's not 3-point shooting, maybe ball-handling, not passing...

[Solid D]

Like I said, it's my opinion that if you put George Hill into the Lakers starting lineup they would still be championship contenders. Honestly I think Fisher is the only weak spot on that team.

And yes, the biggest positive for starting Hill is his defense. Our starting backcourt would have two above average defenders in Manu/Hill, which would improve our faltering defense.

And no, last year during our February/March run, Manu was not playing PG more than George when they were on the court together. George was bringing it up and Manu initiated the offense.

What I had hoped to see from you is some sort of speculation as to how Hill would defend opposing quick and fast Western Conf PGs such as Steve Nash, Aaron Brooks, JJ Barea or Frenchie Boubois. Steve Nash sliced Georgie to ribbons in the playoffs, Brooks gave him fits and Boubois gave Hill and his p/r partners all they could handle in the Game 6 near come-back. Hill is still learning the offensive and defensive position of PG. He doesn't run the middle of the floor well in transition with the ball in his hands, just yet. He hasn't even learned the right time to pass to the wings before he loses his angles (up to the FT line) on the break.

He is learning the position...he's not there yet... and defensively, he has not been able to guard the waterbugs.

[BadMotorscooter]

What 'aspects' of the game is Fisher better at than Hill, other than leadership? It's not 3-point shooting, maybe ball-handling, not passing...

He's a better leader, better under pressure, more experince, better ball handler, and a better passer...what more do you want from a point gaurd? A better shooter? Thats why Hill is an SG.

[chazley]

He's a better leader, better under pressure, more experince, better ball handler, and a better passer...what more do you want from a point gaurd? A better shooter? Thats why Hill is an SG.

We're probably gonna disagree no matter what you and I say, so let's just agree to disagree.

I still believe Lakers would win a championship with Hill at PG.

[BadMotorscooter]

We're probably gonna disagree no matter what you and I say, so let's just agree to disagree.

I still believe Lakers would win a championship with Hill at PG.


Maybe. But on the flipside I know we wouldnt have gotten swept by the Suns with Fisher at the helm with his experience. He is a Horry type player as someone else stated earlier in this thread. Hill disappeared many times in the playoffs....guys like Horry and Fisher rise to the occasion. Fisher would have smacked Nash around and got in his head like he did for the Lakers in the WCF's.

[chazley]

What I had hoped to see from you is some sort of speculation as to how Hill would defend opposing quick and fast Western Conf PGs such as Steve Nash, Aaron Brooks, JJ Barea or Frenchie Boubois. Steve Nash sliced Georgie to ribbons in the playoffs, Brooks gave him fits and Boubois gave Hill and his p/r partners all they could handle in the Game 6 near come-back. Hill is still learning the offensive and defensive position of PG. He doesn't run the middle of the floor well in transition with the ball in his hands, just yet. He hasn't even learned the right time to pass to the wings before he loses his angles (up to the FT line) on the break.

He is learning the position...he's not there yet... and defensively, he has not been able to guard the waterbugs.

Good post.

I will say that I agree Nash/Roddy tore us a new one in the playoffs, but you have to remember Tony was also guarding them and Hill wasn't the only one playing them. Also, Hill was only a second year player last year, and when he figures out how to use his length and lateral quickness effectively he will be much more effective on the defensive end against these types of players. I agree that Hill, at this point, is a below-par fast break PG, and has alot of work to do. In a half-court game though, he's got the skills right now to run this offense, although Parker is better at it.

[eisfeld]

Comparing Fisher and Hill is silly. Fisher is a great starting PG for the Lakers (well two years ago he was even better) - He sucks from time to time but who cares , the guy makes the clutch shot when it matters. Hill has to prove that he can play the point a whole season.

[Josepatches_]

hill isnt a pg, it doesnt matter that the spurs view him as such. Doesnt matter that he was a back-up pg for the first 1.5 yrs of his career and that he was the spurs starting pg during the second half and playoffs of last season. As long as spurstalk keeps saying he isnt a pg it cant possibly be true.


Ps hill didnt get 'destroyed' by nash anymore than the rest of the team got destroyed by the phoenix suns team.


+1

[BackHome]

Hills sucess can be attributed to Manu who was really running the point for us when Tony was out.

I like Hill but I have not seen him really able to create off the dribble and I have not seen him break down defenses and get other player easy baskets.

[J_Paco]

Hills sucess can be attributed to Manu who was really running the point for us when Tony was out.

I like Hill but I have not seen him really able to create off the dribble and I have not seen him break down defenses and get other player easy baskets.

Which are two things Parker does well.

Hill isn't a PG at this point and it's proven by the fact that he put up better numbers when playing SG. His defensive versatility is overrated at this point, IMO. He can guard multiple positions, but that doesn't mean he guards multiple positions well.

[TJastal]

Take Fisher off the lakers and a good chunk of his effectiveness goes straight down the toilet. He'd probably average at least 1 foul more per game and probably get only half the flops called in his favor.

[TJastal]

Just checked my theory, appears I'm correct.

2 out of the 3 years Fisher didn't play for the lakers, he averaged almost 3 fouls per game (the highest for his career)

With the lakers he always averaged much less.

[TJastal]

And then consider the fact that Fisher's dirty play (which entails hand checking, grabbing, pulling, etc) has seen an enormous increase in the last 3 years in order to counter his decline in lateral quickness and athleticism.

For his foul rate to remain steady at 2-2.25 despite this truly speaks volumes about how much of his effectiveness has been bolstered by simply being a part of the nba's most favored team (by refs/Sternfag).

[chazley]

Where's all the naysayers at? You guys scared or what?

[ducks]

how come manu runs more point when hill is out there then hill if hill is the pg

[TJastal]

Where's all the naysayers at? You guys scared or what?

They're probably all lining up to give Fisher a handjob

[chazley]

It's just amazing to me people throw around all the time that he can't be a PG, then shy away from a discussion about it.

[Pauleta14]

It's just amazing to me people throw around all the time that he can't be a PG, then shy away from a discussion about it.


Just because it's a no brainer for anyone who has seen him run the point!
He makes Tony looks like Nash...

+ He HAS to want to be a PG! It's not the case if you read between the lines...
He wants/can be a great SG and his versatility allows him to bck up Tony for short periods.

If the Spurs get rid of Tony (or he leaves), they will have to find a TRUE point guard for the future if we still want to be contenders...

[Man In Black]

My only issue with you telling me he can be a point guard is me knowing that he can't be a dominant one. Yes, TP isn't a prototypical point. He's not pass-first, but at least one can say that he has spent the bulk of his pro career, France included, as being a point guard. He has an understanding of what a true PG needs, and while one can say that his low assists numbers pale to Nash or Paul, I counter with the fact, that when he attacks, he gets to the rim and hits a high percentage of his drives. Also, when it comes to GHill, he's more combo guard than point. He has spent the bulk of his basketball life as a 2 guard and as such, there are more responsibilities he needs to get to become a solid 1. If you say, well Ginobili can do it, I counter with the fact, that Ginobili has been doing it since Italy and with his National Team. In essence, it took time. The time needed for GHill won't be fast enough for Tim Duncan's career. In order to maximize the time left in Tim's career, then Pop has to go with the best foundation that he can. That foundation includes TP and GHill's contributions as a combo guard augment the Spurs. While the depth he provides makes the team stronger, if he was the main point...I feel, the team would be weaker.

[Obstructed_View]

He's a very good emergency point guard, and he's done an excellent job of growing into the position. That said, when fans of a team with a non-traditional PG like Parker look at him and go, "well he's not really a point guard", that should tell people something. There's nothing about George's game that suggests he's supposed to be creating shots for other people. He's a good scorer, but he's not really all that great at breaking people down off the dribble. He's also on a team where it's a waste if he penetrates and kicks the ball out because he's the only one on the team with a reliable corner three.

[DrSteffo]

What I had hoped to see from you is some sort of speculation as to how Hill would defend opposing quick and fast Western Conf PGs such as Steve Nash, Aaron Brooks, JJ Barea or Frenchie Boubois. Steve Nash sliced Georgie to ribbons in the playoffs, Brooks gave him fits and Boubois gave Hill and his p/r partners all they could handle in the Game 6 near come-back. Hill is still learning the offensive and defensive position of PG. He doesn't run the middle of the floor well in transition with the ball in his hands, just yet. He hasn't even learned the right time to pass to the wings before he loses his angles (up to the FT line) on the break.

He is learning the position...he's not there yet... and defensively, he has not been able to guard the waterbugs.

This. Anyone who wants Hill to defend Nash again is either blind, ignorant or not a real Spurs fan.

[benefactor]

Where's all the naysayers at? You guys scared or what?
It's more about no one giving a shit about you or your thread.

[Muser]

We're probably gonna disagree no matter what you and I say, so let's just agree to disagree.

I still believe Lakers would win a championship with Hill at PG.

The Lakers could win a championship with Jacque Vaughn at PG..

[DrSteffo]

Some predictons of future chazley threads:

- Matt Bonner is actually a very good rebounder
- Blair is a finesse player and he is actually taller than people think
- Manu has no heart
- RJ is a manly stud and always fights hard

Just some friendly suggestions/predictions. Don't think they will beat the classic "Keep Roger Mason Jr" thread however.

[mountainballer]

Don't think they will beat the classic "Keep Roger Mason Jr" thread however.

damn, he really did that!
thought it must be something like a running gag or secrete code, but then I checked and only thought wow. no irony, no sarcasm. he really meant that.
but ok, he also wanted to trade for Jared Jeffries. at least he's pretty consistent in what he's doing.

[G-Dawgg]

Saying Hill is NOT a pg is like saying Tim Duncan is NOT a center... it's really doesn't matter much..

[ohmwrecker]

It's just amazing to me people throw around all the time that he can't be a PG, then shy away from a discussion about it.

My only issue is with the people who feel secure enough in Hill right now to throw Parker off the team. Hill is a good player and Pop is obviously grooming him to run the point, but the Spurs are currently better off with TP running the show, at least for now. He is going to have to improve his court vision, ability to pass out of the paint, his quickness on d and his overall IQ before he is ready to run this team . . . and he better learn fast.

[DrSteffo]

damn, he really did that!
thought it must be something like a running gag or secrete code, but then I checked and only thought wow. no irony, no sarcasm. he really meant that.
but ok, he also wanted to trade for Jared Jeffries. at least he's pretty consistent in what he's doing.

Yes he meant it and after starting threads like that he acts like he is the only one who understands basketball :lol

[chazley]

It's more about no one giving a shit about you or your thread.

haha you're so mad that I keep dominating you every time we have a discussion.

Plus almost everytime I make a thread it gets at least 50+ replies, and you wanna bash me loool.

[Nathan89]

haha you're so mad that I keep dominating you every time we have a discussion.

Plus almost everytime I make a thread it gets at least 50+ replies, and you wanna bash me loool.

You replied 10 times on this thread, so that doesn't count.

[FkLA]

He'd be taking over for Tony Parker people, jesus fucking christ. Not for Steve Nash or Rajon Rondo. Tony Parker. The same Tony Parker who's game is primarily scoring. I really dont get this whole argument by Parker loyalists. It's not like Tony runs the offense masterfully, and for all those times he penetrates and kicks out there's also times where his overdribbling absolutely kills the team's flow. Hill wont be a Nashesque PG but he can be a scoring PG, just like #9.

Also enough with the whole Nash destroyed him BS, Amare 'destroys' Tim everytime we face the Suns in the playoffs yet I rarely see anyone call him out. Nash has always put up big numbers against us as well, Hill or no Hill. These players are elite offensive players theyll get theirs regardless of who guards them tbh. The same game can be played with Parker though, if Hill struggles with the speedier PGs what about Parker's struggles with the bigger PGs? Guys like Billups who often abuse him down in the block?

I just find it funny how Parker fans are quick to assume anyone who believes Hill is ready is a Parker hater, yet theyre completely oblivious to how much out of their way they go to hate on Hill. Any weakness Hill may have is magnified and Parker's are conveniently ignored, its laughable. Like I said keep on dreaming that the Spurs will magically extend him and the Spurs and Parker will live happily ever after. Its cute.

[chazley]

You replied 10 times on this thread, so that doesn't count.

It'll end with at least 50 replies from others, don't worry bro

[benefactor]

haha you're so mad that I keep dominating you every time we have a discussion.

Plus almost everytime I make a thread it gets at least 50+ replies, and you wanna bash me loool.

It's more about no one giving a shit about you or your thread.

[chazley]

Does the fact that no one gives a shit about you make it so you need to try and say no one gives a shit about me? You're the one who comes off as insecure and you sound like a 12 year old schoolgirl.

Get over yourself and GTFO out of my thread unless you wanna keep getting bashed.

[benefactor]

Does the fact that no one gives a shit about you make it so you need to try and say no one gives a shit about me? You're the one who comes off as insecure and you sound like a 12 year old schoolgirl.

Get over yourself and GTFO out of my thread unless you wanna keep getting bashed.
Post count insults....check.

Award insults....check.

12 year old school girl insults....check.

You want to go for the mom's basement insult or unemployed insult so you can go ahead and complete the hat trick? I'm still posting here and I'd love to have some more of your bashing.

[ducks]

The Lakers could win a championship with Jacque Vaughn at PG..

fisher always helps his team win atleast one game in a series in the playoffs
he is money in the playofffs

[Waps1980]

The Fish is the only guy on that team who can tell Kobe whats what and Kobe will listen.
That is a very important additional role he adds.

[duhoh]

What 'aspects' of the game is Fisher better at than Hill, other than leadership? It's not 3-point shooting, maybe ball-handling, not passing...

you honestly think hill could handle being next to kobe during crunch time?

who else would kobe trust? hill would be too scared to do anything at all.

read more, post less.

[Blackjack]

... everytime I post something spectacular, the 80% of posters on here who are very uninformed about basketball in general bash me.


:lmao.........:wakeup


:lmao


Good one, #2-ish. :tu

[Chieflion]

chazley always posts some spectacular stuff. My jaw always drops and my stomach always hurts after reading his posts.


After laughing.

[chazley]

Again, if you guys have nothing constructive to add then GTFO of my thread, you're useless rants against me are pointless and no one cares. If I'm such garbage then stop opening my incredible threads and go back to whatever crappy threads you guys usually respond to.

[chazley]

you honestly think hill could handle being next to kobe during crunch time?

who else would kobe trust? hill would be too scared to do anything at all.

read more, post less.

If Smush Parker could handle it for 2 years, George Hill can handle it.

Also, I think Kobe would absolutely LOVE to have Hill on his team, he has an incredible work ethic for a guy with only 2 years of NBA experience, and Kobe is going to respect that, and anyone who has watched at least 48 minutes of basketball in their life can see that Hill has game. Kobe would respect that and take George under his wing.

Read me more, post in other threads and not mine with you're terrible points.

[chazley]

Love how this thread has turned into 'Would Hill be able to win a championship on the Lakers as a starting PG?' Rather than what I intended it to be.

I know the point I made about it was incredible, but I was hoping to get some of the village idiots who think George can't be a PG to come out and try and discuss this with me.

[Man In Black]

Love how this thread has turned into 'Would Hill be able to win a championship on the Lakers as a starting PG?' Rather than what I intended it to be.

I know the point I made about it was incredible, but I was hoping to get some of the village idiots who think George can't be a PG to come out and try and discuss this with me.

I defined why GHill isn't THE PG in this system...but look...no response back.

But whatever...this isn't a TP vs GHill argument. It's more about which players give the Spurs the best chance of winning. TP, still has the edge over GHill. But it's their combined efforts that help keep opposing PG's in check, whatever their accolades.

[GSH]

The Lakers don't need a PG that averages 10 AST per game, because they have 3 bigs that average over 3 AST per game each. Say hello to the triangle offense. The rest of the discussion about Fisher and Hill is nonsense. In a triangle, no PG is going to put up huge assist numbers. If they did, it wouldn't be a triangle offense. Damn, people.

I know I posted this in another thread, but last season, Hill played 2276 total minutes vs. 2150 for Manu, but Manu recorded 370 AST while Hill had just 226. Manu usually averages about 4.5-4.6 AST/36 minutes. Last season he averaged 6.2 AST/36 minutes. Which one do you think was the backup PG? The same person who is likely to be the backup PG this season, unless something changes drastically.

BTW - during their championship years, the Bulls' high-assist man was always Scottie Pippen. (Except the last year when Pippen was hurt, and then it was Tony Kukoc.) Sound familiar? Don't try and compare a PG in the triangle to one from any other team. It makes no sense.

[chazley]

The Lakers don't need a PG that averages 10 AST per game, because they have 3 bigs that average over 3 AST per game each. Say hello to the triangle offense. The rest of the discussion about Fisher and Hill is nonsense. In a triangle, no PG is going to put up huge assist numbers. If they did, it wouldn't be a triangle offense. Damn, people.

I know I posted this in another thread, but last season, Hill played 2276 total minutes vs. 2150 for Manu, but Manu recorded 370 AST while Hill had just 226. Manu usually averages about 4.5-4.6 AST/36 minutes. Last season he averaged 6.2 AST/36 minutes. Which one do you think was the backup PG? The same person who is likely to be the backup PG this season, unless something changes drastically.

BTW - during their championship years, the Bulls' high-assist man was always Scottie Pippen. (Except the last year when Pippen was hurt, and then it was Tony Kukoc.) Sound familiar? Don't try and compare a PG in the triangle to one from any other team. It makes no sense.'

I understand what you're saying, but you're completely wrong.

Manu on this team plays a point-SG role. He doesn't bring the ball up, but he creates alot of the offense. Same with Duncan. He has good assist numbers himself because he's a master of passing out of double teams. Traditionally, our center has been an above-average passer also. Our best passing center was Fab.

It's basically the same as the Lakers, where they don't need a PG to set up each person, instead it's everyone setting each other up. TP gets a large majority of points on his own creating off the dribble, which we would obviously miss without him in our system.

Like I have said previously though... TP, right now, is a better fit for our system than George. I'm not arguing that, and nowhere have I said he was either a better player or fit than TP.

I believe George has the potential to be an upgraded Fisher, with more length. He does almost everything better than Fisher on the basketball court (aka no intangibles like leadership/clutchness count). In the future, he can develop all the intangibles a guy at PG should have. Again, he just finished his 2nd season.

[chazley]

My only issue with you telling me he can be a point guard is me knowing that he can't be a dominant one. Yes, TP isn't a prototypical point. He's not pass-first, but at least one can say that he has spent the bulk of his pro career, France included, as being a point guard. He has an understanding of what a true PG needs, and while one can say that his low assists numbers pale to Nash or Paul, I counter with the fact, that when he attacks, he gets to the rim and hits a high percentage of his drives. Also, when it comes to GHill, he's more combo guard than point. He has spent the bulk of his basketball life as a 2 guard and as such, there are more responsibilities he needs to get to become a solid 1. If you say, well Ginobili can do it, I counter with the fact, that Ginobili has been doing it since Italy and with his National Team. In essence, it took time. The time needed for GHill won't be fast enough for Tim Duncan's career. In order to maximize the time left in Tim's career, then Pop has to go with the best foundation that he can. That foundation includes TP and GHill's contributions as a combo guard augment the Spurs. While the depth he provides makes the team stronger, if he was the main point...I feel, the team would be weaker.

Again, you're misconstruing what I said.

I said George Hill can be a PG in this sytem. Nowhere did he should take the place of Tony during Tim's remaining career. I believe George has the potential to be a really good PG in 2-3 years. We still have TP in his prime... in 2-3 years when TP's speed starts to dwindle (maybe sooner by the looks of last season, but I believe last season was a fluke for TP), TP will have to become a 6th man and Hill will take the reigns of the starting PG role.

It is more likely than unlikely at this point that we will be losing TP next summer, or trading him at the deadline. If that's the case, I have no problems giving the reigns to George if it comes down to it (I prefer TP staying long-term), even if we won't be as good for a short while.

People always wondered what Manu could do if he were on a team that played him 36-39 minutes a night. He showed us in Feb-March. He is a superstar and a top-3 SG in this league, even at the age of 32, when given the ball/minutes. However, he needs the ball in his hands to be that dominant player, and with Hill running the point, Manu becomes the offensive focal point/setup man. It worked well last season.

[GSH]

'

I understand what you're saying, but you're completely wrong.

Manu on this team plays a point-SG role. He doesn't bring the ball up, but he creates alot of the offense. Same with Duncan. He has good assist numbers himself because he's a master of passing out of double teams. Traditionally, our center has been an above-average passer also. Our best passing center was Fab.

It's basically the same as the Lakers, where they don't need a PG to set up each person, instead it's everyone setting each other up. TP gets a large majority of points on his own creating off the dribble, which we would obviously miss without him in our system.

Like I have said previously though... TP, right now, is a better fit for our system than George. I'm not arguing that, and nowhere have I said he was either a better player or fit than TP.

I believe George has the potential to be an upgraded Fisher, with more length. He does almost everything better than Fisher on the basketball court (aka no intangibles like leadership/clutchness count). In the future, he can develop all the intangibles a guy at PG should have. Again, he just finished his 2nd season.


Okay - I didn't see the "troll thread" warnings before I bothered to post. Have a good life.

[TJastal]

Again, you're misconstruing what I said.

I said George Hill can be a PG in this sytem. Nowhere did he should take the place of Tony during Tim's remaining career. I believe George has the potential to be a really good PG in 2-3 years. We still have TP in his prime... in 2-3 years when TP's speed starts to dwindle (maybe sooner by the looks of last season, but I believe last season was a fluke for TP), TP will have to become a 6th man and Hill will take the reigns of the starting PG role.

It is more likely than unlikely at this point that we will be losing TP next summer, or trading him at the deadline. If that's the case, I have no problems giving the reigns to George if it comes down to it (I prefer TP staying long-term), even if we won't be as good for a short while.

People always wondered what Manu could do if he were on a team that played him 36-39 minutes a night. He showed us in Feb-March. He is a superstar and a top-3 SG in this league, even at the age of 32, when given the ball/minutes. However, he needs the ball in his hands to be that dominant player, and with Hill running the point, Manu becomes the offensive focal point/setup man. It worked well last season.

+1

I agree with this. IMO Hill will probably take the reigns of the offense after this year if Parker bolts and his role won't be to rack up 10+ assists a game, the point guard duties will be a shared effort between him, Manu, Temple and possibly Neal.

Eventually he'll start learning more intricate things such as how to get others involved in the offense and not just himself. So there will be life after Parker (should he bolt for NY).

[benefactor]

Again, if you guys have nothing constructive to add then GTFO of my thread, you're useless rants against me are pointless and no one cares. If I'm such garbage then stop opening my incredible threads and go back to whatever crappy threads you guys usually respond to.
Make me.

:wakeup

[chazley]

Make me.

:wakeup

No thanks you're not worth it, even if you're a seal bounce champion.

[benefactor]

No thanks you're not worth it, even if you're a seal bounce champion.
You are so cute. I love seeing people venture out into the internets for the first time. It's like watching a colt attempt standing after being born.

[chazley]

You are so cute. I love seeing people venture out into the internets for the first time. It's like watching a colt attempt standing after being born.

I love seeing people fail at their attempt at being humorous.

Once again, you came in here to bash me and say, basically, im seeking attention and you didn't even read my post. I'm on here to have a discussion, but every once in awhile in my threads there are a few boneheads like yourself who just ignore what im typing and just randomly attack me. Even though it's fun to absolutely crush people in these instances, I'd rather talk about what I made the thread for. If randomly fighting with guys on the internet is you're thing, so be it, you have free reign to embarrass yourself as you attempt to berate me, while I keep slapping you backwards and people can see that you're head is full of nothing but hot air.

If you'd like to talk about George Hill as a PG, we can have a civilized discussion. In the meantime, please kindly take your seal champion badge and 8k posts of apparent garbage and take it somewhere else where some idiot might give a damn. My pitiful post count contains 10x more value than your 8k posts combined.

[chazley]

Okay - I didn't see the "troll thread" warnings before I bothered to post. Have a good life.

Please don't take it the wrong way, it's just my opinion. I came off as a little harsh, I apologize.

[Agloco]

everytime I post something spectacular, the 80% of posters on here who are very uninformed about basketball in general bash me.

I'm always willing to change my viewpoint. If someone comes up with a good argument, I am willing to say I'm wrong.

I've yet to see anything spectacular from you, let alone convincing.

And heaven forbid that your "spectacular" post be wrong...... :lol :rolleyes

[Agloco]

+1

I agree with this. IMO Hill will probably take the reigns of the offense after this year if Parker bolts and his role won't be to rack up 10+ assists a game, the point guard duties will be a shared effort between him, Manu, Temple and possibly Neal.

Eventually he'll start learning more intricate things such as how to get others involved in the offense and not just himself. So there will be life after Parker (should he bolt for NY).

As long as you realize that it will be on a respirator.

[duhoh]

if one person laughs at you, it's whatever. if two people laugh at you, question yourself. if three or more people laugh at you, check yourself for sure.

read more, post less. unless you a troll.

[benefactor]

Once again, you came in here to bash me and say, basically, im seeking attention and you didn't even read my post.


I guess it's time for another flame-chazley thread,
:wakeup


If you'd like to talk about George Hill as a PG, we can have a civilized discussion. In the meantime, please kindly take your seal champion badge and 8k posts of apparent garbage and take it somewhere else where some idiot might give a damn. My pitiful post count contains 10x more value than your 8k posts combined.
Didn't you already play this card? More weak post count smack?

You disappoint me....I expect so much more from the #1 poster.

[chazley]

:wakeup

Didn't you already play this card? More weak post count smack?

You disappoint me....I expect so much more from the #1 poster.

And I expect alot more from a Seal Bounce Champion.. so that makes us even.

Again, all of you bashing me are just saying I'm wrong or stupid, and then not even saying why or trying to discuss anything with me. If you wanna grow a pair and move past just posting 'you suck and you're wrong', let me know.

[chazley]

if one person laughs at you, it's whatever. if two people laugh at you, question yourself. if three or more people laugh at you, check yourself for sure.

read more, post less. unless you a troll.

As soon as those same people who laugh at me come up with some type of argument, then I will leave. They may laugh, but it's probably because they know I am right and have zero chance of defending their views because they know what awaits them when I respond. I will crush them time and time again, and in the minority of times when I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

[benefactor]

Again, all of you bashing me are just saying I'm wrong or stupid, and then not even saying why or trying to discuss anything with me.
Never said you were wrong...just a liar.


Once again, you came in here to bash me and say, basically, im seeking attention and you didn't even read my post.


I guess it's time for another flame-chazley thread,

[chazley]

Never said you were wrong...just a liar.

Name one thing I have LIED about. After you spend a full minute thinking about it and cannot come up with a legitimate lie I have said, then come back and keep re-quoting me. It's sad that your posts are so terrible that the quotes you put in each post are longer than anything you actually type.

[Blackjack]

Name one thing I have LIED about. After you spend a full minute thinking about it and cannot come up with a legitimate lie I have said, then come back and keep re-quoting me. It's sad that your posts are so terrible that the quotes you put in each post are longer than anything you actually type.

#1 Poster.

The resident kingmaker would know, tbh.

[Solid D]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3064/2419245023_0ed253fd4e.jpg

[benefactor]

Name one thing I have LIED about.


Once again, you came in here to bash me and say, basically, im seeking attention and you didn't even read my post.


I guess it's time for another flame-chazley thread,
lol liar

[ohmwrecker]

Never said you were wrong...just a liar.


Name one thing I have LIED about. After you spend a full minute thinking about it and cannot come up with a legitimate lie I have said, then come back and keep re-quoting me. It's sad that your posts are so terrible that the quotes you put in each post are longer than anything you actually type.

You two make a really cute couple.

[chazley]

You two make a really cute couple.

Judging from his choice of avatar, I wouldn't doubt he'd like the chance to make it happen.

Unfortunately for him, im exit only.

[Nathan89]

Judging from his choice of avatar, I wouldn't doubt he'd like the chance to make it happen.

Unfortunately for him, im exit only.

This message right here is the equivalent of saying "BUMP".