George Hill sucks for a starter. Serviceable coming off the bench but nothing more. If this Pacers team had a legit PG starting they'd really be a consistent contender.
Printable View
George Hill sucks for a starter. Serviceable coming off the bench but nothing more. If this Pacers team had a legit PG starting they'd really be a consistent contender.
I would love him off the bench for Green. Hill is not a point so his lack of ability to dribble makes Danny Green look like a spastic. Miami will expose teams that can't handle the ball more than any other.Quote:
Originally Posted by hater
Hill is definitely as was posted here a million times during his time as a spur primarily a combo guard. Having him as your back-up point and back-up 2 would be very nice for a team to have, as his ball-handling and passing is decent but hardly all world quality. A big part of the issue this time of year is that he is somewhat prone to traps and a team that can game-plan for a few days and 7 games can chew alot heavier on a teams weaknesses. Add in that having super athletic wings to assist in those traps is a hallmark of the Heat and it exposes Hill a bit more than usual.
I don't know if I'd really make Hill a starter, he's questionable as a 1, (though with a ball-handling 2 a lot of that issue goes away save in the play-offs) and very undersized as a 2, but a good defender and fairly strong in the post to be able to avoid the way some 2's want to back down smaller defenders.
I do begrudge him two things. His lack of consistency on the road (could also be phrased a only only occasionally having a good game on the road) and the feeling he is decidedly over-paid 9which is in part due to that very lack of consistency someone that put up his home numbers on the road as well would be worth 8 mil, but he's only worth about 5 based on his actual stats and eye test). Now to the pacers he is worth more than to most other teams as a home-town boy that has made it, and the fact that his home away break-down mirrors the teams as a whole. Its not simply a case of Hill bringing down the pacers but most of the team there has a home bias that isn't attributable to just Play. He also had a home v away break with the spurs but not as big.
Pacers really lacking at PG -- that's painfully obvious watching this series.
Takes forever for them to get the ball over and get an entry pass to wing or big.
He's better than all our back up guards combined.
Haters running out of things to say.. can't say he's phased on the road anymore. Just hung 18 on the supposed most invincible team ever according to most of you faggots.
Now its down to you butthurt douches quibbling over exactly what position he plays. Who gives a shit. What's hilarious is you'll all be pissing and moaning about something... "Hill scored 24 ..but did you guys see that turnover in the 4th quarter, like omg he's not a point!! Pacers would be, like the best team evvah in history of nba if they had a real point guard! "
:rolleyes
:lol
George Hill has always over-dribbled. It used to really mess up the offensive sets for us, and that hasn't changed. He is also a big hustle player and last night showed both sides of George. Lots of hustle and lots of bad dribbling.
Getting to the ECF and stealing home court aginst the #1 seed (and should be up 2-0 if not for a coaching blunder) isn't contending apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stabula
:lmao
"There’s only like one person that’s more scarier than that,” Hill said, speaking of James. ”And that’s, you know, God.”
:lmao
I can't believe I thought this way now...but a few years ago I was one of those people who wanted to trade Parker and keep George Hill. And I wasn't alone. A lot of people were talking about it. Tony had just received a lot of negative press because of the Eva Longoria divorce/scandal and the fallout from it and also because of his pouting about being benched for stretches in the playoffs that year for George Hill. Not to mention Pop called George Hill "His favorite player" at the time.
Obviously I was wrong. George Hill is a pretty good point guard, and has clearly led the Pacers from a mediocre team to a legitimate contender, but he's nowhere near Tony Parker's level as a point guard. In fact, I don't think Hill is really a natural point guard at all, even now. He doesn't handle the ball well enough, he turns it over, and doesn't drive and kick nearly as much or as good as Tony does. I think Hill was destined to become a wing in our system, and maybe Pop saw that and decided to trade him for a better wing (Kawhi).
I'd love to play him in the finals though. Not gunna happen I know, but it would be pretty awesome for Tony and him to finally duel it out, and see who deserved to stay and who deserved to go. I know it really wouldn't become a National Storyline, but it would be pretty big here in San Antonio because of the divide between fans a few years ago on which one we should keep.
LeBron's probably fuming over that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by pikkiwoki
The idea behind the trade TP and keep George Hill wasn't for Hill to play like a real PG. But for him to start at PG while Manu handled most of the PG duties.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheyCallMePro
Well that makes more sense considering George Hill isn't a great ball handler. I just remember being so nervous on draft night if we were going to make a move to deal either one of them. Honestly I had no idea who it would be. I remember the consensus was that we couldn't get enough value trading Tony and that nobody really saw the value we placed in Hill either. Internally we wanted desperately to make a move because of the growing tension between them. The Pacers obviously placed more value in Hill than other teams because he was a home town kid, so we just got lucky making a deal with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by therealtruth
In hindsight I just can't believe how stupid the rest of the NBA was. If I was any team, I would've jumped at the chance to try and trade for Parker. But that just goes to show you how underrated and undervalued Tony has been throughout his entire career. I guess teams figured we really wouldn't have let Parker go and they didn't want to embarrass themselves getting rejected. But still, at that moment in time, I believe that if we had been offered a bunch of draft picks or young prospects, we would have taken it and kept Hill instead. Alas, it is now a forgotten and brief chapter, but now with the Pacers and Spurs potentially meeting up in the Finals, it's becoming intriguing again.
One more thing. Secretly I'd feel somewhat justified if the Spurs and Pacers met in the Finals and Hill beat out Parker. I know Tony's a lot better than Hill and that Hill obviously has flaws handling the ball and does so much less on the offensive end than Tony does, but still. I thought Hill was a decent enough replacement that along with trading Parker and getting new pieces would make our team better (which seemed to be fledgling at the time, having just lost to Memphis 4-2 in the playoffs). I wonder if the Hill supporters at the time (like me) would come out of the woodwork again. I dunno. It would sure be interesting!
Hill might be more mature, but Hill would not be able to carry this Spurs team like Parker has, Hill is in a good young team, with two future all stars. I still can not believe that he has not figured out how to pass or dribble out of a double team properly, but in a way he doesn't need to in Indiana.
Hill is nothing special. TP is a HOFer. Next.
They're contending this year, I get that. You missed the word I used before 'contender' which was 'consistent'. If they had a real PG running the show with Hill being a 6th man off the bench Pacers would consistently have a shot at a ring for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
i love Hill as a competitor (of course not over Parker, but I give Hill his due)..
I just CANT UNDERSTAND how hes a starting PG in the NBA ECF and cant handle the rock very well? Everytime I see him being pressured Im like "Cmon Hill just make a move.. a hesitation, or an in-and-out, or a stutter step.. cmon something.." Im baffled lol but oh well he's getting the job done
:lol so glad this fucker is gone :lol
1 point tonight ....1 point! Really?!?!!
Ah, I remember circa 2010 when some wanted to trade Tony because George had arrived....
That said, I like George, so I'm not enjoying watching him get exposed that way on the road.
Hill is a point guard that would thrive in Phil´s Jackson system. Or any other system that requires a point guard to end a play and not to make it.
Just like Fisher, he has good size, is a good defensive player and can hit the 3 at high clip. He can also cut and penetrate hard, he´s an above average player while finishing at the rim.
He has the possibilitty to be a great fin in Indiana where primarilly ballhandlers tend to be either George, Granger or Stephenson. While Hibbert will play in the post more and more ala Spurs 1999-2003.
I thnk Hill would be a also great fit in other teams like Houston, Miami and maybe the actual Lakers.
Hill seems to defer too much in Vogel's system and he rarely gets his number called. He also seems to never get any fast break opportunities like he had as a spur. If he could learn how to handle contact going to the rim like Parker he'd average 7-8 free throws a game. He's got an excellent 16-18 foot jumper and vatiety of floaters that he never uses anymore either.
Vogel needs to figure out how to get him going because if he's not scoring 18 efficient points a game he's not pulling his weight since he doesn't get others easy baskets.
Hill's time as a premier point guard is arriving in Indiana, folks. Pretty much took over the game tonight when Paul George was shitting the bed.. finishing with 37/9/8/2. Haters gonna keep hating I'm sure. Tried to tell y'all all Hill could play the position of point guard. All he needed was more time to develop. Scary thing is he's still got a lot more to learn.
So I guess it's a good thing for both Indiana and the Spurs that the Spurs drafted Hill instead of Donte Greene.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
this idiot almost cost his team homecourt yesterday :lmao :lmao