Spurs' Hill makes date to fix his wayward shot

[duncan228]

Hill played his best game yesterday and Monroe says nothing

It looks like the article was written before yesterday's game.

It wasn’t fate that made Hill miss nearly every shot he attempted in the three games he played in the Las Vegas Summer Pro League this week...

[GSH]

One last comment about the Spurs draft. Making a less-than-totally-positive observation about Hill doesn't equate to saying that he is hopeless, or that the Spurs FO are incompetent.

I thought the Spurs could have taken Chalmers or CDR at 26, and still gotten Hill in the second round. We'll never know, but in the article posted, Lever says differently - that someone would have taken Hill before our second pick. If that was true, then it's a lot harder to argue with taking Hill, since they were obviously sold on him as a person as well as a player.

The other thing is that even IF they had managed to get Hill with their second pick, they wouldn't have gotten either Gist or Hairston. And either one of those guys (right now it looks more like Gist) could balance the equation.

Even if Hill is a little less than Chalmers this season, but Gist is able to bring it off the bench, it will have been a good draft. Because as much as we need a backup PG, we also need some energy and toughness off the bench. If we get that from a 45 or 57 pick, the FO deserves some applause.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'd doubt that there's any front office in the league that's closer to the coaching staff at Kansas than the front office in San Antonio. I seriously doubt that the Spurs proceeded with their draft decisions without undertaking their due diligence and asking Self and his staff what they thought about the Jayhawks who were available in the draft. With that said, the fact that the Spurs passed on Chalmers to select Hill suggests to me that the Kansas staff had some doubts about Chalmers -- likely the doubts that K-State has detailed. I'm hypothesizing, but I'd guess that if there were such criticisms, the fact that those crticisms came from trusted friends is probably not insignificant.

Time will tell on Chalmers v. Hill. Summer league is not that time.

[T Park]

There's no such thing as objectiveness here. You are either with us or against us. You're probably not even a Spur fan.

Oh STFU already.

I've seen enough of your emo BS and am sick of it.

Slit the wrists and stop posting and get it over with.


No one said you HAD to agree with the FO or any other BS.

But people like you labeling the guy a bust and saying he sucks the FO is idiots for drafting him is the BS.

How about giving the kid some time against REAL NBA compe ion, some regular season games, maybe even,GASP!!! A FULL SEASON!!
OH NOES!!!


STFU already you little piss ant.

[FromWayDowntown]

I thought the Spurs could have taken Chalmers or CDR at 26, and still gotten Hill in the second round. We'll never know but in the article posted, Lever says differently - that someone would have taken Hill before our second pick. If that was true, then it's a lot harder to argue with taking Hill, since they were obviously sold on him as a person as well as a player.

There are published reports that Boston had promised to select Hill if he got past the Spurs at 26.

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...simmer/?page=2

[GSH]

Both. For all of his strengths, offensively he was not much more than a spot up shooter who relied on collapsing defenses to get him his shots. I've been shocked by his FTA in the summer league so far because he could go entire months in college without getting to the line that much.

Now, I will say this - when they moved him to the 2, he's a better passer than most 2 guards. But when he played the point, he was tentative and struggled mightily to balance getting his own shot vs. getting the team in the offense, which usually resulted in neither occurring.

KU's offense really took off 2 years ago when they moved Chalmers off the ball and let Sherron Collins - who is a shoot first PG himself - run the point.

Good enough for me. (And thanks for the response.) That helps put things in perspective. Hill may need some work learning the point, but it sounds like Chalmers might not be cut out for it. Our opinion of the draft doesn't really matter, but it helps to understand.

I'd still like to have Chalmers' point production, but this is the Spurs we're talking about. Hill's defense and rebounding are what will get him minutes, and those look pretty solid. His PG education isn't really going to start until he gets into camp with the rest of the Spurs players. I'd still like to see them play him at the 2 a little bit in this summer league, for his sake.

There are published reports that Boston had promised to select Hill if he got past the Spurs at 26.

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...simmer/?page=2

Yeah, but there were published reports that we were going to pick Batum at 26, if he was available. (Batum said so himself in an interview.) And Hill said that the Spurs told him they were going to pick him at 26. One of them would have been wrong.

I never thought the C's would have passed up CDR/Chalmers/Giddens if they were on the board. But even if that's true, it does look like the Spurs would have had to trade up in the second round to get Hill. That would have cost them Hairston or Gist, or both. Like I said, my opinion doesn't mean anything, but we're still the people who buy tickets. The perspective helps.

[ElNono]

Oh STFU already.

I've seen enough of your emo BS and am sick of it.

Slit the wrists and stop posting and get it over with.

you and your ty posts. How about you bring some substance to the topic instead of criticizing my opinions. If you don't like to read my posts, just put me on ing ignore and stop whining like a little .

No one said you HAD to agree with the FO or any other BS.

But people like you labeling the guy a bust and saying he sucks the FO is idiots for drafting him is the BS.

WTF? Where did I criticize the FO for drafting him? Where did I label him a bust? Is this the same little world in your head where Iran has nukes?
Stop making up.

How about giving the kid some time against REAL NBA compe ion, some regular season games, maybe even,GASP!!! A FULL SEASON!!
OH NOES!!!

STFU already you little piss ant.

He's not ready for real NBA compe ion. He's barely ready for the compe ion he's facing right now. He's obviously trying to learn a new position, and that takes a lot of work and time. Drill it in your ing head: My point is that unless he improves by leaps and bounds (which I would really welcome, but I seriously doubt will be the case), he's not going to have an impact on our team next season.

If you want to comment about Hill, fine. If you want to about my posts, go to the ing Troll forum, where those posts belong.

[Spur-Addict]

I have to disagree with you. He was a solid PG at that point, that could run an offense through Tim Duncan. He did not have a jumper then and was relatively simple to stop being that he could only drive (hence running 4 down almost every time). He still had major disappearing issues during the playoffs, and he regularly had meetings with Pop's wrath. He was solid. It took him 3 more years after that to develop a jumper and be an All-Star (what I can consider outstanding). As far as being a starter, well, he pretty much was since the get go. That doesn't mean he was solid. Without a Speedy Claxton we don't win in '03.

It took a Tony Parker who already played professionally in France and played PG all his life, about 3 years to become a solid PG under Pop's wing. I would be greatly surprised (and glad), if Hill can be a decent backup by the end of the season.

Now there I disagree. It took TP three years to become an outstanding, starting point guard on the best team in the NBA. Hill doesn't need to live up to that this season. We already have a Tony Parker.

If Hill could get to the point that he can distribute the ball adequatly, without having to think about it, and maybe get to the line some when he's backing up Parker, it would be enough. His quickness, rebounding, and defense would make him preferable to Vaughn in that spot.

The question is, can he run the point this season without having to think about it? At the NBA level, a little bit of hesitation can make a good decision look like a bad one. It's a lot to ask from a guy who was a 2 in college.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/tony_p...eer_stats.html

[Spurs Brazil]

It looks like the article was written before yesterday's game.

I know. That's why I think Monroe sucks. He wrote nothing about yesterday game

[Brutalis]

you and your ty posts. How about you bring some substance to the topic instead of criticizing my opinions. If you don't like to read my posts, just put me on ing ignore and stop whining like a little .


WTF? Where did I criticize the FO for drafting him? Where did I label him a bust? Is this the same little world in your head where Iran has nukes?
Stop making up.



He's not ready for real NBA compe ion. He's barely ready for the compe ion he's facing right now. He's obviously trying to learn a new position, and that takes a lot of work and time. Drill it in your ing head: My point is that unless he improves by leaps and bounds (which I would really welcome, but I seriously doubt will be the case), he's not going to have an impact on our team next season.

If you want to comment about Hill, fine. If you want to about my posts, go to the ing Troll forum, where those posts belong.

He is narcissistic. Ignore it.

[underdawg]

One last comment about the Spurs draft. Making a less-than-totally-positive observation about Hill doesn't equate to saying that he is hopeless, or that the Spurs FO are incompetent.

I thought the Spurs could have taken Chalmers or CDR at 26, and still gotten Hill in the second round. We'll never know, but in the article posted, Lever says differently - that someone would have taken Hill before our second pick. If that was true, then it's a lot harder to argue with taking Hill, since they were obviously sold on him as a person as well as a player.

The other thing is that even IF they had managed to get Hill with their second pick, they wouldn't have gotten either Gist or Hairston. And either one of those guys (right now it looks more like Gist) could balance the equation.

Even if Hill is a little less than Chalmers this season, but Gist is able to bring it off the bench, it will have been a good draft. Because as much as we need a backup PG, we also need some energy and toughness off the bench. If we get that from a 45 or 57 pick, the FO deserves some applause.

Well said - it almost looks like our Front Office knows what they're doing.