i know alot of y'all were hating on him in the first round for passing up chalmers, greene (donte), and white (dj), to name a few.
now that the season has panned out a bit, how do you feel about the FO's pick of george hill?
i just read this:and it made me realize, man, this FO isn't as stupid as some of us said they were..San Antonio coach Gregg Popovich couldn't have scripted those words any better or found a better fit for his team that deep into the draft. The Spurs were the only team that had Hill on their radar in the first round, but this franchise knew what it was doing ... again. San Antonio hit on Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker when everyone else passed.
At the time I was disappointed we didn't draft Darrel Arthur cuz I thought a guy like him was a much more pressing need than a back-up PG, but then I hadn't watched Hill at all, like most people, and knew next to nothing about him.
I'm glad Hill is proving all his doubters wrong and long may it continue.I'm happy to say I was wrong about him.
If Batum was available when the Spurs turn came up, would they really have stuck with Hill?
George Hill is obviously working out really well (understatement).
I believe the FO has a real knack of picking the right talent for their system.
This involves a lot of variables and excludes some extremely talented players
who don't have the requisite character, tenacity, Bball IQ, maturity etc. As great as
Hill is playing for the Spurs, I'm not sure he'd fit this well on just any NBA roster. Pop
obviously has a vision for where Hill fits and now we are starting to see it too.
And yes, RC does deserve a pat on the back as well as Pop and GHill.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Premature ejaculation board
Beno had a couple of good games too. Hey, he even played in Rookie-sop re all star game and look how that went down...
I'm just saying...let's not get ahead of ourselves
the question with batum, had the spurs drafted him, would they even put him on the roster? or send him to euro for 1 year?
This question is discussed here.
I think people just don't understand the FO. If they think there isn't someone at their pick that can contribute to the team, they trade it. Other than 2003, I don't think any of them have been outright salary dumps. There just wasn't anyone there at 28 or 29 or wherever they were picking. They must have been jumping up and down like little kids before Houston's pick when they knew they were either getting Batum or Hill this year.
First rounders the Spurs used for themselves this decade:
2001 Tony
2004 Beno
2005 Ian
2007 Splitter
2008 Hill
That's not a bad haul. Beno has talent, they just didn't know he was mentally weak. This list is what is making me patient with Mahinmi's development.
Just imagine if Splitter had come over.
The Spurs would have had the offseason that we would be talking about in 5 years how "It extended the championship window 8 more years"
Fing Tau.
Nice wish. Your only looking at one dimension of his game. Beno is thin skin and vain in the head. That is simply NOT SPUR BALL.
no one knows how good splitter is
Yeah they do. Splitter is a damn damn good player who at times looks better than Scola.
Tiago Splitter, along side Oberto, Bonner and Thomas would've been fantastic and the Spurs could've not had to be tied soooo darn tied to Ian making or breaking their season.
I agree, but who knew that after preseason and a couple of games?
It's refreshing to log on to spurstalk each morning and see that all of those ridiculous RC must go and Pop is over-rated types of threads and posts have dried up and blown away. Pop & RC are masters at what they do, and routinely outperform everybody in the business, especially those with much more money to spend.
Splitter's worst case scenario would be Joel Przbilla, which is not bad I think. I suppose he'd have a production similar to Scola's, maybe a bit less points, but more rebs and blocks. He has a fairly good BB IQ too. Would have been great next to Tim, esp on defense.
He's not scared of Lindsey Hunter... Hill >>>>> Beno!
Getting someone like Hill makes Splitter all the more frustrating. He would have nicely rounded out an incredible young core of Spurs' players. It's not impossible that he still comes over, but the timing was perfect before. Just one of those things.
+1 Hill, after a handful of games, did something Beno never did: bring the ball up effectively against Hunter, who timvp says is one of the best defensive PGs of the last 20 years. I'm waiting for Tony to come back to see if he spanks Beno in another way: being effective in limited minutes. Beno never was.
i personally always thought Pop and RC knew what they were doing..
i had never heard of GHill before the draft, but once i read that the spurs had been looking at him for along while now, i knew that we'd made the right choice when they drafted him.
+Pops
+RC
What some of the asshats don't acknowledge is that EVERY team passed on Chalmers in the first round, so they aren't just arrogant enough to think they are smarter than Pop/RC, they ing think they are smarter than each and every GM in the NBA. Losers.
Agreed. Splitter was a great pick at that spot, the Spurs just got unlucky.
Beno and Scola were also excellent picks that the Spurs might have sold too low.
Hill tops the list as a late first round gem.
The only possibly bad pick the last few years is Mahinmi. They had the physical attributes right but its hard to judge the drive and heart of someone so young. And he may still work out, anyway.
*back patted*
I do like the pick of G. Hill, but a question does come to mind that I am sure has been covered a million and one times. With the Spurs being most weak at the SF/PF position, would it have been better served if they had picked Arthur or Batum (if he was there... which he wasn't)?
So looking back, if they had drafted Arthur first, who would have been available after he was picked? It's a possibility that G. Hill would have still been out there. Or they could have tried to trade up in the second round to get Chalmers (since he was a pothead, I don't think they would have though in which I have no problem with not having him at all). And if anything else, they could have stayed where they were and picked up M. Taylor who they already knew about since he was in their own D-League.
Now seeing as so many injuries have occured, it was a Godsend that Hill was around to pick up the slack for TP. No one would have predicted the injury to him, so in hindsight, Hill was the perfect pick but I do wonder what the results would have been if the draft had turned out another way.
Which Spurs team additions look better to you:
D. Arthur - A SF who can rebound, block, and score decently.
M. Taylor - A very capable PG who has done very well with the Clippers when given minutes
or
G. Hill - A very capable PG who has done very well when given minutes
Hairston - N/A cut
Of course, this is knowing after seeing how these players perform in the league so it's not realistic, but the Spurs have needed and searched for a capable SF since S. Elliott. I think Arthur would have been a perfect fit imo but am happy with G. Hill since he is at least a player in this league and he isn't a weedhead.
Last edited by montgod; 11-27-2008 at 03:21 PM.
George Hill was gone to the Celtics. Thats a fact.
Chalmers is OK, but is no George hill.
The Spurs will be fine.
I'll give it to them it was a good pick
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
