oh, and LOL at Hill being our third best player
Even if Hill blew donkey and went 2-for-10 again, he'd have had 2 immediate positive impacts:
a) He'd have done a better job than the guy running back-up point (Mason)
b) Mason would have been doing what he can do - camp out beyond arc and get some open looks - rather than looking like a deer in the headlights trying to run the offense
Also, Hill would have done a better job guarding the Puerto Rican smurf.
Translation: I don't like point guards that aren't French. I turned on Hill after a couple s said that Hill > Parker so I've made it my vendetta to bury that non-French PG.
That 4th quarter sequence was the worst I've ever seen...that 5 point lead by Dallas was easily convertible into a 2-2 series....
I'm convinced, that Pop's greatness as an all-time coach has holes. He has Timmy , Mr. Groundhog day, to account for the credit he receives for the 50 win seasons..consistency...
and it's fpretty obvious in these playoffs, Pop's crunch time/ in game decisions to mount comebacks/and/or to win our 4th quarters in the post-season time and time again have been masked by having, Mr. Manu Ginobili at his disposal.
Now that Bowen is diminished that Pop's defensive adjustments are going all for naught as well.
The players make Pop a better coach, Pop doesn't make the players better. (Mason, Hill, Finley, Bonner)
That said, to be fair to Pop , his tools outside of Timmy/Tony leave a lot to be desired this season...
( I still don't want any other coach than Pop)
The fact is we need our offense to stay with Tony on the court too.He's not going to made 40 every night.
We can't play that kind of basketball.
If Tony has to tkae 30 shots per game then it means that we had a big problem
you're ridiculous about that timvp. really. you've called me out about hating Hill already just because i found it too much when you said you expected him to be a difference maker against LA.
i can't say it better than i've done so many times: i want him to be the backup PG and play at least 13 mpg (with Tony at 35 to stay fresh). i like the kid.
but you said about Hill:
1) he could be the difference maker against LA
2) he's our third best player (without manu)
i really don't agree about that. he could be part of the solution for us, but only a little part.
but how could i dare to disagree with you on this one ? my bad.
Mind you, Pop actually did a great job in the regular season playing Mason and Hill at their designated spots. The Spurs minus Manu and before Gooden were 43-20 and were comfortably in the # 2 spot in the West. That right there was a COY-worthy effort.
From that point on, Pop ed up royally. We fell out of the 2 spot and would have been the 5th seed but for a lucky Finley 3 that sent the Hornets game into OT. We finished the season 9-8, and are now 1-3 in the playoffs. So basically Pop has led this team to a 10-11 record in the last 21 games with his ed-up tactics.
Based soley on today's game, Hill was our third best. He made the most of his time on the court. After Duncan and Parker, he was the only bright spot. If he wasn't, who was? Mason didn't even freaking score.oh, and LOL at Hill being our third best player
Hill hit two baskets today. Big deal. Finley is still a much better shooter. So is Mason.
based on ONE SINGLE game, almost all the NBA players could be the third best player of their team. it's meaningless. and Timvp didn't mean only for this game if i understood correctly. and anyway, Bruce was our third best player tonight.
The kid is good. but IMHO, Timvp, and a lot of spurstalk members who dutifully follow his arguments (which is often a good idea though), are expecting too much of him.
but i wouldn't mind him playing more. i'm all for it. i just think it won't change a lot of things if rebounding and shooting stays as poor as it was tonight.
A difference maker as in an x-factor. In other words, what he did tonight. I never said he was going to be a superstar against the Lakers. I said that his athleticism allows him to do things that the spot-up shooters on the roster can't do against a Phil Jackson defense.
I don't know what is so hard to understand about that statement.
Welcome to the club. That's all I've asked. You act like I want him to replace Parker or Duncan in the pecking order.
Read above. Who do you think could be the role player that could be the difference maker against LA? Please, give me your the kace approved potential x-factor.but you said about Hill:
1) he could be the difference maker against LA
If he wasn't the third best player today, who was?
Where have I ever said he'd be a big part of the solution. Today the Spurs needed a "little part" to help out. One role player along for the ride could have been enough. They didn't need a superstar, they needed one offensive role player to play well.
I'm not even sure what you are disagreeing with. Perhaps you will tell me that x-factor which you see as such a superior choice against the Lakers than Hill is. Perhaps you will find a post where I ever hinted at Hill becoming a go-to superstar on this team or whatever you allege.
good point, i don´t understand why in the with 5 pt deficit with a full minute and some change left that we start shooting 3 pointers. I think the last 5 shots of the game were all 3 pointers.
wth ?!!
any coach will tell u that you don´t start jackin up 3´s if you can get a 2, they didn´t even try going for the 2, tony parker who was hitting everything from everywhere doesn´t even get a chance to get a play ?
if your down 5 and ur the cavs, the balls going to lebron james, if your laker, it´s going to kobe, the best player on the team (or at least the hottest one right now) should be taking the shots , at least he has shown consistenly throughout the game that he can score, i mean , isn´t it obvious ??
pop´s coaching this game was horrible, well every game this series.
how do we blow them out by 20 in game 2, but then lost the next 2 , it´s the same players out there.
well, really, right now, i can't even think about the lakers.
anyway, let's say i'm a little less optimistic than you about Hill potential positive influence on the team.
I would be happy to be wrong and to see him help us win the next 3 games against the mavs though.
oh, and again, Bruce was our third best player tonight, as usual (with manu's out and when Bruce has playing time).
Nice cop out.
One other thing I don't think it's been expressed enough... going small early in the 3rd, getting murdered on the boards, and stay small pretty much the rest of the way (Bonner out there is pretty much the same as playing small, considering he can't grab a rebound).
Too many mistakes.
I'm upset.
For me keep TD, Manu, TP, Bruce and Hill and dump the rest of the team.
Bonner can't play,
Finley is done, he was done last year but for some reason was rewarded with a 2 year deal with a player option
Mason give us 0 in the biggest game of the season and is only effective when he starts. His D is only better than Finley Trade him.
Thomas and Gooden are MIA in the playoffs.
Udoka is bad. He should know his limitations and stop taking terrible shots.
Pop must be Pop again; forget the O and get players who can play D
We'll win game 5
so, the X-factor against LA ?
i've always thought the X-factor theory was an legendary myth invented by some lame journalist to look smart. I don't believe in X-factor players. because the X-factor, if there is any, is a thing you couldn't expected.
so, basically, when a journalist says a player could be the x-factor of a serie, it's a way to write something without taking too much risk.
Like " "this player" could be the X-factor of this serie". if he is, the journalist looks like a genius. if he isn't, well, a x-factor isn't a sure thing, you know, that's why that's an X-factor.
about Hill, i always expect from him (for this year) to take care of the ball with tony on the bench, and providing a decent/good defense, without not too much greatness on offense.
i think he could be the best at it on the team and i wouldn't expect anything more from him.
So why didn't you tell me there's no such thing as an x-factor rather going going on an anti-Hill rampage? Now that I've asked for your opinion, you don't even know what to say because you realize *gasp* Hill is the player that could be the x-factor against a Phil Jackson coached team.
That is some impressive backpedaling. Attack timvp for calling Hill an x-factor and then when the tables turn, insist that the whole x-factor logic doesn't exist. So what were you disagreeing with in the first place if it didn't even exist?
That's hilarious
Yeah, that's basically what I've said about Hill since Day 1. You seemingly blew it out of proportion in your own mind and then went on the offensive to prove Hill isn't something you don't believe in.
You guys calling out GHILL? wtf.
I give the rookie a pass so far after what pop has done to his self esteem roster minutes late into the season and carried over into the playoffs..... that , dudes a defender not a offensive player, so if he does the defense correctly i see no reason why we should be jumping up and down over his lack of output on the stat sheet.
disappointed in mason, finley, gooden, thomas, oberto, bonner
the real blame is pop and manu
How the is it Pop's fault if a player runs up the court and clanks a three!?
This team as its composed sucks badly. Age has caught up with this Spurs finally! If you want to blame Pop for anything, blame him for putting this team together as it is. Yeah, this team...the same team many in here were touting as the deepest squad in the Duncan era.
Stop with all the Pop hate...the man can only do so much with the crap that he has on the bench. I wonder if many here would be singing a different tune had Bonner, Mason, and Hill regressed as badly as they did since starting off so promising earlier this year.
Ghill did a really good defensive job on kobe, nash, iverson in the regular season as we have all seen, too bad it wasnt shown in the playoffs....call him whatever you want, but his the only one off the bench that actually plays defense.That is some impressive backpedaling. Attack timvp for calling Hill an x-factor and then when the tables turn, insist that the whole x-factor logic doesn't exist. So what were you disagreeing with in the first place if it didn't even exist?
That's hilarious
Yeah, that's basically what I've said about Hill since Day 1. You seemingly blew it out of proportion in your own mind and then went on the offensive to prove Hill isn't something you don't believe in.
You need to read the thread from the beginning.You guys calling out GHILL? wtf.
I give the rookie a pass so far after what pop has done to his self esteem roster minutes late into the season and carried over into the playoffs..... that , dudes a defender not a offensive player, so if he does the defense correctly i see no reason why we should be jumping up and down over his lack of output on the stat sheet.
disappointed in mason, finley, gooden, thomas, oberto, bonner
the real blame is pop and manu
well, let's make it very simple.
you expect good ball handling (better than mase) from Hill: i do too.
you expect good defense from him: i expect a decent/good one too.
you expect an offensive impact from him: I DON'T (for this year).
Someone email this to Popovich.
The offensive impact is relative. If the team struggles with Hill running the show, that is a huge offensive impact compared to the utter dismantling of momentum that happens when Mason is running the show.
Hill isn't John Stockton but I'd find it very hard to believe that his ball handling alone wouldn't allow the offense to run smoother with Parker out of the lineup. If you think Mason and Hill would both result in the same type of offensive numbers produced by the team, then yeah we disagree between the different degrees of suck.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
