Reply With Quote
No. He's a undersized 2 guard who gets abused on defense. His court vision is more limited than any of our guards, and that's a bad thing on a team built on the pick and roll, the ultimate "read and react" offense.
he seems to be doing damn good since they let him start.
http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=320413011
No. He's a undersized 2 guard who gets abused on defense. His court vision is more limited than any of our guards, and that's a bad thing on a team built on the pick and roll, the ultimate "read and react" offense.
He likes to hang out with Boner in the playoffs and disappear.
Kawhi-5-0 begs to differ.
http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=320413011
Looks like a starting job might be exactly what the doctor ordered for Hill, and it also appears in this role he can in fact play the point guard position and deliver dimes.Hill scored 10 points in the second quarter on Friday, helping the Pacers rally from a 14-point deficit. He played as more of a pure point guard in the third quarter with no points, four assists and no turnovers.
"Sometimes, it might not be your time to take the shots and be aggressive," Hill said. "In the second quarter, even playing with D.G. (Danny Granger) out there, he saw that I had the mismatch at the time and I had it going a little bit and we were running a lot of things for me, and then in the third quarter, we had D.G. and David West going."
He wouldn't start here.
This thread should be a real hit with Grey Name Spurs Fan
Get over it! he is gone and not comingback. Another useless thread.
Seriously guys, of all the boxscores to sniff....
What's the obsession with this guy? He's not even as good as Gary Neal.
Spurs don't need anything except for Pop to give Splitter ALL of Blair's minutes.
So you'd give up Kawhi for him?
I mean, he'd be a suitable backup for Tony, but he's not the answer to the Spurs' problems by any stretch of the imagination.
He was playing the Cavs....
Our guards are better than Hill. Even I like Mills more.
The point was he showed he has point guard skills if that's what the situation calls for. Which means maybe there's more potential there that nobody has seen yet.
No we don't.
He sucks.
....against the Cavs.
It's not like he never got assists in the past.
One game? Really? That's your "proof"? That's what you're bringing to the table?
Sorry, the sample size in SA is much more valid. George had good games here. He also had the other 80% where he either disappeared or sucked.
He's got to learn how to pass on the pick and roll first.
He generally faired better when Parker was out and he was the starting point guard. He never did all that well in the backup SG role. He had consistency issues in that role and never really excelled. In the point guard position however he tended to have better games, and seemed to bring something every night (more consistency).
I agree it's only a few games against scrub teams, but I have a su ion that he may excel in a starting PG role, especially on a defense first team like the pacers. Backup SG doesn't seem to be the role he's best suited for.
Unfortunately, that's the only role available to him here. Makes the thread moot, since it's about re-acquiring George.
Cherry picking games to base an opinion is not a good argument.
That said, Hill was a good player and was always key in beating the Mavs. He'd be great to have, but Leonard fills a bigger need.
But let's not get crazy and think Mills or Neal are better than him. Simply not true. He was solid in every part of his game, just not spectacular.
Okay so give Leonard away now and we get Hill back, basically thats what it would be.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
