Hill got a 1/4 of a rookie season to see if he could be the backup. Yet Finley gets 25+ minutes each game to see if he still gots it. I don't understand it.
But he’s not giving you 20pts, he's giving you 11pts and stand still offense- through in acouple of turnovers and maybe one assist. I am a patient guy and willing to give things a try, but ever since pop started doing this we have a lackluster offense and lost games we should be winning.
I thought we drafted George Hill as backup PG. But then again pop does have a way of ruining backup PG's or finishing you pick your poison.
Last i checked G Hill has a pretty good assist to turnover ratio. And offense did not look that bad earlier in the season or even up to about a month ago. So why the change. Mason may play more productivly with more time but everyone else suffers. Dont believe me watch the last 3 games, that says it all.
I thought Hill did a great job when Parker went down and he came in to fill that role. He a bad game from time to time, but he's a rookie.
no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no
exactly so whats the point of trying mason as backup. I noticed that you are not seeing any more production from G HILL cuase you put him in as SG. He still doesnt shoot more so put him back at point let him run the offense. I could understand the more if Hill was scoring like crazy from the SG position but he's not.
SEE i like that!! Quick & simple. no, no, no!!!!!!!
However, will pop ever swtich the backup PG role to Ghill.
Strongly doubt it
cant wait for ginobli, even if hes not healthy he gives the spurs some much needed fight, and motovation that is lacking on the court.
I said this months ago, Mason's dribble is WAY too high and he cannot finish at all when in the paint unless it is a wide open layup. Moving him to backup PG was the worst thing that could have happened to him. It has completely taken him out of rhythm and caused some real momentum shifting turnovers. If Mason is not shooting and hitting wide open 3's off of post double teams or penetration, he becomes a liability.
Yes, yes and yes. Not only does playing Mason at the point hamper the offense when he's running it, it hampers Mason's game when he's not running it, thus depriving us of one of our better shooters.
nonononononononoonoononnonononononoono
God forbid Hill run the offense. I'm surprised Finley isn't our starting PG.
No, no, Noooooooooo, he sucks at PG, probable is right that his numbers goes up when he run the team, but those turnovers when the game is on the line SUCKS.
I prefer in those situation that TP run the team and gives the ball to Roger, otherwise, a turnover come up.
Judging a backup PG, while Manu is out, is just moot.
Mason is fine.
His ability to sink 3 pointers is his strength.
I am fairly sure he will learn the system over time. If not, he's out. No big deal.
next thread.
Fixed.
Fixed.
It's sure than playing with a SG that is a better scorer than James, Bryant or Wade doesn't change what the PG has to do.
Spurs basketball doesn't revolve around Manu Ginobili. The backup point guard should be able to do the basics such as bring the ball up the court without it getting stolen, initiating the offense in less than 15 seconds or run a play other than a pick-and-roll.
It's sure than playing with a SG that is a better scorer than James, Bryant or Wade doesn't change what the PG has to do.
Ginobili will help but there are have been many teams in the history of the NBA who have been successful without Ginobili on their team.
i can't believe i'm saying this, but, should we have gone after Starbury?
the problem stems from Mason's inability to penetrate and dish the ball which leads to a very stagnant and inefficient 2nd team offense. Hill would do a better job of this.
When Manu is on the court with Parker, Spurs basketball revolves around Ginobili as much as Cavs/Heat/Lakers basketball revolves around James/Wade/Bryant.
And ???
So I guess we can't judge Parker's play without Ginobili either.
Plus, Hill's best basketball of the season was when Ginobili was out of the lineup. When Ginobili returned, Hill started deferring and his aggressiveness disappeared. That's when he patented his "pass to the shooting guard and run to the corner" routine.
Basically, I just don't agree that you can't judge a point guard without Manu on the court. Hill was playing at an acceptable level without Manu. Manu will change the role but the bench shouldn't be held faultless until his return.
How much of Hill's early success was the opposition not knowing his strengths and weaknesses and once they figured out his weaknesses he was neutered?
Mason or Hill being good or bad PG in the absolute is as uninteresting as it can be.
What is interesting to know is what they can do as Spurs backup PG and Ginobili on the court is a huge factor for the backup PG.
Hill was playing well in November but there is something called the rookie wall...
Now, I don't held Spurs' bench fautless but I'm just saying that Manu will change a lot of things for the backup PG.
Manu is a better backup PG option than Mason for sure. Than Hill? Probably so, but Hill is a rookie and didn't get much of a chance to prove himself IMO. If you put hill and Manu together on the floor, I think Hill would be better as the backup PG, because he might be able to create for Manu.
I see Bruno's point. I do, but Mason is killing us right now as the backup PG. The point is not a moot one right now because the Spurs are suffering a bit because of Pop's decision.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
