48MoH: Dwyer: George Hill is ‘Overrated’

[yagozev]

On a national level, I don't think many people overrate George Hill. He didn't make the sop re team and you never hear about teams trying to fill their point guard void by trading for Hill.

As far as Spurs fans, I can somewhat agree he's overrated. A lot of Spurs fans have him rated correctly but there are some who think he's comparable to Tony Parker -- which he isn't. The truth is he's a smallish shooting guard who can handle the ball, score when he's aggressive and gives a lot of effort on the defensive end. But he's not an elite defender (he can sometimes be very good but he's wildly inconsistent and has bad habits), he's not a good rebounder anymore (he's actually the worst defensive rebounder on the team), he's a sub par passer and playmaker for a point guard (that's being kind) and it's very unlikely he's an All-Star in the making or anything like that.

That said, I think he's a hugely important important piece to this team. I fully support the idea of Hill starting at shooting guard and backing up TP at point (in fact, letting him play that role last year might have given the Spurs a chance against the Mavs in the playoffs). If the Spurs are going to win a championship this season, Hill will be one of the main pieces to the formula.

And as for the pick of Hill, it was simply a great selection by the Spurs front office. As it turns out, Chalmers sucks, Darrell Arthur looks pretty bad, CDR wouldn't be helpful ... basically the FO hit a home run. Great pick and extra impressive that the Spurs located him, scouted him correctly and had the cajones to pick him over so many other big names.

cajones? "cajón" is a "drawer"! You mean "cojones"?

Yes, the FO had the cojones to pick Hill!

[mountainballer]

I'm pretty happy with Hill and I agree that at 26 the Spurs couldn't have done much better than pick him.
(there are a few players with more upside, like Greene and DeAndre Jordan, who might look like the better pick in some years though, but who couldn't play a significant role with the Spursthis season)
I still don't rank him in the "steal" category. he is a good pick for a late 1st rounder. that's all.
the right question would be: what team that picked ahead of the Spurs would switch that player for Hill in a second? not so many. likely Suns, Bobcats and Jazz, maybe Cavs. that's it in my book. it's not that half the league regrets to have passed on him. (which is the case with Blair).

he is totally overrated on this board when it comes to his trade value. how many proposals did we hear when someone states like: nice scenario, but if we have to trow in Hill I pass. jesus. a lot of people even claimed they are happy that the Camby trade didn't materialize, because this would have cost us Hill. again, Hill is a nice player to have, but it's not that the Spurs future is depending on him. if you can get Camby for last season AND this season instead of Hill, you do it. (you also do it, if you think Camby is somehow overrated, which is the case, but hey, of course he would impact the Spurs 5 times as much as Hill. especially against Lakers and Mavs)

question: what is Hills upside for his career? IMO he can deliver a career slightly better than Charlie Bell for example. which means: legit NBA player, regular rotation player for most teams, solid option for complimentary starter on a weaker team or 6th to 8th man on a top team.

[TJastal]

On a national level, I don't think many people overrate George Hill. He didn't make the sop re team and you never hear about teams trying to fill their point guard void by trading for Hill.

As far as Spurs fans, I can somewhat agree he's overrated. A lot of Spurs fans have him rated correctly but there are some who think he's comparable to Tony Parker -- which he isn't. The truth is he's a smallish shooting guard who can handle the ball, score when he's aggressive and gives a lot of effort on the defensive end. But he's not an elite defender (he can sometimes be very good but he's wildly inconsistent and has bad habits), he's not a good rebounder anymore (he's actually the worst defensive rebounder on the team), he's a sub par passer and playmaker for a point guard (that's being kind) and it's very unlikely he's an All-Star in the making or anything like that.

That said, I think he's a hugely important important piece to this team. I fully support the idea of Hill starting at shooting guard and backing up TP at point (in fact, letting him play that role last year might have given the Spurs a chance against the Mavs in the playoffs). If the Spurs are going to win a championship this season, Hill will be one of the main pieces to the formula.

And as for the pick of Hill, it was simply a great selection by the Spurs front office. As it turns out, Chalmers sucks, Darrell Arthur looks pretty bad, CDR wouldn't be helpful ... basically the FO hit a home run. Great pick and extra impressive that the Spurs located him, scouted him correctly and had the cajones to pick him over so many other big names.

Timvp

You have to pick on his defensive rebounding of all things? Why not point out that he's 5X the offensive rebounder of Parker? Just admit your all riled up people are talking about Hill's game being equal to Parker.

If it makes you feel better, TP > Hill. There, I said it. Now let me also say....

The thing I LOVE about George Hill is the guy is TENACIOUS AS ING . Seriously, there is no guard in the NBA (except Rajon Rondo) that I've seen that comes even close. I've literally seen him rip the ball out of the hands of much bigger and stronger players like he was taking candy from a baby. If that ball is anywhere near him, you can almost guarantee it will be his, even if 5 other guys are in the same area.

You can also add Dante Green to the list of guys who Hill is destroying atm. I chewed Pop a new one for not drafting Green, and now I'm real glad he didn't.

[weebo]

I'm not sure, but that indeed could be a typo, couldn't it ?
i mean wouldn't "underrated" make more sense in this sentence ?


anyway, if Hill may have been overrated ONLY HERE ON ST, that's for 2 reasons:

- the natural tendency of fans to overreact to new young players. You've seen it with Hill, Blair (who are great though), Ian in his few times and a lot more. Some good games and those young guys are seen as saviors or all stars, not a big deal.

- his position as TP's backup. No need to talk again about the very vocals TP haters. Any praise they made to Hill is a way to bash TP and ask for a trade.


Honestly, considering how low we are in the draft, being able to have guys like Blair and Hill to produce for us is just awesome.

GHill is in year two of his NBA career and has comprable stats to Parker's second year in the league, all this playing less minutes and as a backup running with guys the likes of Bonner.

Parker has always had the benefit of playing with the Spurs' best players (i.e. HOF Robinson, a young TD, and a defensive stallworth in BB).

There is a reason Pop is high on this guy because GHill has all the skills to be as good or better than the one trick pony that is Parker.

[Muser]

Kelly must be reading ST, because he is overrated as on here. Yeah he's good, but at people saying hill = parker.

[FalleNxWiZarDx]

On a national level, I don't think many people overrate George Hill. He didn't make the sop re team and you never hear about teams trying to fill their point guard void by trading for Hill.

As far as Spurs fans, I can somewhat agree he's overrated. A lot of Spurs fans have him rated correctly but there are some who think he's comparable to Tony Parker -- which he isn't. The truth is he's a smallish shooting guard who can handle the ball, score when he's aggressive and gives a lot of effort on the defensive end. But he's not an elite defender (he can sometimes be very good but he's wildly inconsistent and has bad habits), he's not a good rebounder anymore (he's actually the worst defensive rebounder on the team), he's a sub par passer and playmaker for a point guard (that's being kind) and it's very unlikely he's an All-Star in the making or anything like that.

That said, I think he's a hugely important important piece to this team. I fully support the idea of Hill starting at shooting guard and backing up TP at point (in fact, letting him play that role last year might have given the Spurs a chance against the Mavs in the playoffs). If the Spurs are going to win a championship this season, Hill will be one of the main pieces to the formula.

And as for the pick of Hill, it was simply a great selection by the Spurs front office. As it turns out, Chalmers sucks, Darrell Arthur looks pretty bad, CDR wouldn't be helpful ... basically the FO hit a home run. Great pick and extra impressive that the Spurs located him, scouted him correctly and had the cajones to pick him over so many other big names.

rack him!

[ElNono]

Hill shows a lot of promise. A lot of people forget he's a sop re. He's got a lot to learn, but he's got great upside and a great at ude towards working hard and getting better. On top of that, he seems like a humble kid that cares about the community.
I'm glad to have him on the team.

[will_spurs]

GHill is in year two of his NBA career and has comprable stats to Parker's second year in the league, all this playing less minutes and as a backup running with guys the likes of Bonner.

True, on the other hand at the same age Parker was already a 2-time NBA champ and was going to his first All-Star game...

As a side note, I like Hill, I think it was a good pick (would have prefered Batum, though), he has the right at ude and is contributing for the Spurs. I don't see the point of comparing him to Parker, though...

[DxB]

If anything the dudes Underrated... Dwyers a .

[z0sa]

Hill has a problem with over-relying on his length on defense rather than footspeed. The most obvious example this season was Deron's gamewinner (?) over George that came off nothing more than a simple but very quick crossover.

On offense, he's actually pretty talented considering his size, but it's become awfully clear this season that he is no pg.

Overrated? I'd have to agree that he is, but only by a slight margin. He's better offensively than some might give him credit, but he's worse defensively and isn't a playmaker.

[in2deep]

most NBA fans don't even know who Geroge Hill is

overrated???? what a dumb

btw, Hill is already as good or better than Rondo was on his 2nd year. How is that for overrating?

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

On a national level, I don't think many people overrate George Hill. He didn't make the sop re team and you never hear about teams trying to fill their point guard void by trading for Hill.

As far as Spurs fans, I can somewhat agree he's overrated. A lot of Spurs fans have him rated correctly but there are some who think he's comparable to Tony Parker -- which he isn't. The truth is he's a smallish shooting guard who can handle the ball, score when he's aggressive and gives a lot of effort on the defensive end. But he's not an elite defender (he can sometimes be very good but he's wildly inconsistent and has bad habits), he's not a good rebounder anymore (he's actually the worst defensive rebounder on the team), he's a sub par passer and playmaker for a point guard (that's being kind) and it's very unlikely he's an All-Star in the making or anything like that.

That said, I think he's a hugely important important piece to this team. I fully support the idea of Hill starting at shooting guard and backing up TP at point (in fact, letting him play that role last year might have given the Spurs a chance against the Mavs in the playoffs). If the Spurs are going to win a championship this season, Hill will be one of the main pieces to the formula.

And as for the pick of Hill, it was simply a great selection by the Spurs front office. As it turns out, Chalmers sucks, Darrell Arthur looks pretty bad, CDR wouldn't be helpful ... basically the FO hit a home run. Great pick and extra impressive that the Spurs located him, scouted him correctly and had the cajones to pick him over so many other big names.

I think the Spurs FO did do a nice job in picking Hill. As you mention, though, his best role really is at a backup two guard. He's really not a point guard from what I've seen. Perhaps Pop doesn't think this team needs a true point, or true backup point, but it's obvious to me that this team is lacking some playmaking skills. Insert Manu into any game and suddenly everyone on the team looks better...until Manu runs out of gas...and Ginobili isn't a point guard either.

With Tony hurting, and likely to be hurting until the end of the season, if I was the Spurs FO, the one move I'd be looking to make before the trade deadline is the acquisition of a backup point who's a decent distributor, and not horrible on the defensive end. Aside from guys who can lock down the other team at the end of 4th quarters, I think a backup point who can distribute the ball well is what this team is missing right now.

[dbestpro]

I see George Hill fourishing as the shooting guard. This will be his spot in the starting rotation once Tony returns. If he is able to manage 15 ppg starting or more then the Spurs will turn the page on Manu, unless he can be had for 5 mil per season.

[Josepatches_]

Overrated? Nobody said he's the new MJ.

But if you see his stats since he's a starter we are talking about a shopomore who can score 15ppg,can shoot from 3 and it's a pretty good defensive player.That's another steal for the Spurs in the NBA draft.

[mountainballer]

btw, Hill is already as good or better than Rondo was on his 2nd year. How is that for overrating?

I guess this IS the best example of how this board overrates Hill.
this claim is as wrong as wrong can be. and I do wish this was true.
(btw. Rondo wasn't only much better in his soph season, 07-08 he also was 2 years younger than Hill is)

[Kori Ellis]

Why not point out that he's 5X the offensive rebounder of Parker?

Because .1 compared to .5 isn't worth mentioning. Neither one of them get enough offensive rebounds to talk about.

[Kori Ellis]

As for the main topic, I think that Hill is overrated by a group of Spurs fans that hate Parker, but I don't think anyone else out there overrates him... most casual fans don't know who he is and most people around the league think he's a solid combo guard -- which he is. I think the Parker-Hill backcourt is going to really flourish once Parker is healthy. Hill is a big asset to the Spurs and one of the many keys to their success.

[SenorSpur]

There's no question that Hill has been a pleasant surprise. He definitely fills a need for this team. I just think Pop overrates his defensive capabilities. Matching him up on Kobe, LeBron and Dirk. Hill is a good defensive player, with long arms. He has the ability to be even better than that. However, Pop need not get so carried away and start matching him up with the elite players of the NBA.

[LOL@MavsFan]

George Hill is da ...not a pg though

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't mean this to disparage George Hill in any way, but it's pretty clear to me (now) that he's become the same cause célèbre that Speedy Claxton once was. I realize that this is a George Hill thread and I don't mean, in any way, to compare Hill's game to Claxton's. But at bottom in any discussion like this one, the theme seems to be indistinguishable from the conversations we had in 2003, 2004, and even into 2005: George Hill (like Speedy Claxton) is not Tony Parker; he's an exciting fresh face, perhaps with a bit of tenacity that isn't always obvious in Tony Parker, with a slightly different game that appeals to some.

It's a funny comparison to me because in each case, we're left comparing a limited player who will never be more than a role player with a guy who has been elected to 3 All-Star Games. What is striking about that is that Tony Parker has played well enough for years to have garnered the respect of coaches around the Western Conference and basketball in general (I think), who recognize him to be a formidable player, no matter his supposed faults, and one who is among the very best players in the game. Yet through exactly the same time period, Spurs fans continue to wish Tony Parker was someone else -- or maybe more specifically, somewhere else.

It's funny that Tony Parker was least susceptible to criticism when his backup was the much-reviled Jacque Vaughn. Put even a reasonably-talented player behind Parker and some Spurs fans are ready to send Tony Parker on his way.

[Admidave50]

it's funny that tony parker was least susceptible to criticism when his backup was the much-reviled jacque vaughn. Put even a reasonably-talented player behind parker and some spurs fans are ready to send tony parker on his way.

amen

[hater]

what a stupid ing article.

[Josepatches_]

Underrated

[itzsoweezee]

It's funny that Tony Parker was least susceptible to criticism when his backup was the much-reviled Jacque Vaughn. Put even a reasonably-talented player behind Parker and some Spurs fans are ready to send Tony Parker on his way.

It's because Tony Parker is an extremely flawed point guard. He's a great player; he's an all star, but as a point guard, he's not that good at doing what you expect a point guard to do on the offensive end. Luckily, his scoring usually makes up for it.

[FkLA]

I don't mean this to disparage George Hill in any way, but it's pretty clear to me (now) that he's become the same cause célèbre that Speedy Claxton once was. I realize that this is a George Hill thread and I don't mean, in any way, to compare Hill's game to Claxton's. But at bottom in any discussion like this one, the theme seems to be indistinguishable from the conversations we had in 2003, 2004, and even into 2005: George Hill (like Speedy Claxton) is not Tony Parker; he's an exciting fresh face, perhaps with a bit of tenacity that isn't always obvious in Tony Parker, with a slightly different game that appeals to some.

It's a funny comparison to me because in each case, we're left comparing a limited player who will never be more than a role player with a guy who has been elected to 3 All-Star Games. What is striking about that is that Tony Parker has played well enough for years to have garnered the respect of coaches around the Western Conference and basketball in general (I think), who recognize him to be a formidable player, no matter his supposed faults, and one who is among the very best players in the game. Yet through exactly the same time period, Spurs fans continue to wish Tony Parker was someone else -- or maybe more specifically, somewhere else.

It's funny that Tony Parker was least susceptible to criticism when his backup was the much-reviled Jacque Vaughn. Put even a reasonably-talented player behind Parker and some Spurs fans are ready to send Tony Parker on his way.

There's a midway point to this whole Parker/Hill comparison...

No he is not as good as Parker like the Parker haters say, but he also isnt just another half-decent PG that will be nothing but a role player like some of you Parker lovers make it seem. The kid's got the talent to have a very good career, and thats becoming apparent to the point where you simply cant deny it unless youre blinded by the Parker love. He's more than capable of driving and finishing although definitely not like Parker can. He also has a significantly better jumper than Tony...and his defense, while somewhat overrated, is still miles ahead of what Tony's is.

Also some of us "Parker haters" want to ship him out not only because he has his flaw but also because of what we'd get in return. The way you guys make it seem youd think we want to give him away...when in reality our main point is that we'd rather rock a line-up of Hill-Manu-RJ-(insert star big man)-Duncan over what we currently have. We are not saying we prefer Hill-Manu-RJ-Dice-Duncan over Parker-Manu-RJ-Dice-Duncan, we are not saying Hill > Parker or that Hill=Parker. We're simply saying that Hill's emergence has afforded us the luxury to deal Parker to fill other voids.