Recently, the higher-ups implored the "raising of the bar" and asked for help from the masses. Well, I did the polite thing and offered to lend a hand, but it was really a token gesture; no good deed goes unpunished, huh? :smokin So from here on out, SpursTalk's got their own columnist (a very poor-man's version; it's free, deal with it) covering random topics/threads that pique his interest.
Without further adieu:
Dwyer Knows Best?
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2009/wri...eorge-hill.jpg
Is George Hill overrated?
It would seem it depends on whom you ask.
On a national level, it'd be hard to make an argument for it. Sure, he's become the knowing-man's player: "That guy's Pop's favorite, I bet you didn't know that". But there's no one out there clamoring for his services or calling him the next big thing. He's simply someone people "in the know" are staying somewhat cognizant of; should he become a quasi-star down the line, they allow themselves the latitude of saying they knew then.
On a Spurs fan level, sure, there's always a contingent that tends to overrate the backup; it's a practice not limited to the NBA (see: NFL quarterback). When the starter isn't quite getting it done, or at least not to their most desired result, the backup's potential to do so allows the mind to run wild with possibility; optimism is high as they've yet to be let down.
So we get the arguments that the Spurs would be better off without Parker, or that he should be coming off the bench. But is it really about their belief in Hill, or is it their disdain and-or disappointment with the man in front of him?
I contend it's the latter (even if subconscious).
See, growing accustomed to a certain level of success, results in a certain level of expectation. The level of play needed for a 50-plus win season or a decent playoff-run, individually and collectively, is taken for granted and a fan base becomes transfixed upon the final result; 80-percent of what's gone before is forgotten.
That last 20-percent never is.
It's the fat kid in the kiddie pool effect: alone he's fine, the water only nears the brim. But add another kid or two, and the brim's breached; you need the fatboy to find yourself at a certain level.
Tim Duncan has been the "fatboy" for the Spurs' foundation ever since he was drafted in '97 (a notion that surely warms his heart). But the analogy holds water applied to the point guard, as well: Tony Parker puts the Spurs' water at a level that allows one to credit overflow to the last one in.
There are arguments to be made for trading Parker, but no logical one would consist of Hill being a better player: Perhaps you can promote Hill to starting role, as he's shown the type of growth that could have him thriving in a Triangle-like backcourt or with a facilitating-pivotman, and the net gains of Hill and the acquired player(s) outweigh the loss of Parker?
It's plausible in theory, but pulling the trigger on such a move wouldn't be for the faint of heart; finding the right player(s) to do so is another matter.
As for Hill and his prospects moving forward?
I think you've got to be pretty high on the kid; after seeing Memphis and Conley a few days ago, you can't say the Spurs didn't get value with the 26th pick.
The tools are all there and the head on his shoulders seems to be one capable of utilizing them to the best of his ability. He's coachable, hard-working, intelligent and a fearless competitor.
What's not to like?
At best, he's a star the likes of Barbosa and Ellis (at least as it pertains to their standing in the league). The chances of him enjoying Parker-like status or having a comparable career are slim, but a contributing, winning player seems all but certain.
Conclusions are bound to come prematurely, as is always the case when dealing with developing players. But caution should be taken when determining what a young player can and can't do.
Summer League '08 need only be a reminder.

