Reply With Quote
Hill is definitely the future
I want to see him starting and when Parker comes back, I don't know.
Maybe its time to rebuild and Parker could be bait? I don't know
I'm curious what everybody's opinions are. Who is a better player? Personally, I think Parker is a better jump shooter and more proficient at running the Spurs offense, but I feel Hill is a better all-around player. Hill looks WAY better than Parker when he was a 2nd year player. Hill also plays BOTH sides of the ball very well and not just the offensive side. while Parker has become too much of a one dimensional scoring point guard..
Don't get me wrong, I love Tony Parker, he can be a terror offensively, but I think the Spurs have to take the leadership role from Parker and give it to Hill... Hill is the Future for the Spurs.
What are everybody else's thoughts on this?
Hill is definitely the future
I want to see him starting and when Parker comes back, I don't know.
Maybe its time to rebuild and Parker could be bait? I don't know
Hill struggles to make plays and struggles at passing the ball. He is going to be part of the Spurs future but unless he's got Manu or Parker alongside with him; the Spurs won't have a legitimate playmaker. As awesome as Hill was last night against OKC as he set a new career high scoring wise; he had zero assists. Imo Tim Duncan's drop in offensive production has a lot to do with a lack of Tony Parker since those two guys have the most chemistry with eachother and Hill just doesn't create or make plays like those guys have done (winning championships together kind of does that for 'em).
He's been making huge improvements in the other facets of his game but imo passing and creating plays is one of the more difficult areas to improve in. Like rebounding its almost a quality that you have to have had before playing in the NBA; almost too late to get significantly better after that.
Parker was a top 3 PG last season and in the top 10 PER-wise and in the games prior to injury he was returning to that career-high form. As long as Parker is healthy he's going to be a much better guard and asset than Hill but Hill is an awesome guy to give minutes to in the meantime.
Even that is debatable and Hill is almost 24... Parker was 20 yo.
As of now there is no debate Parker >>> Hill
Hill is doing very well but he still has a long way to go.
Its too early to predict Hill's future at this point. Tp has just entered his prime and should be the primary focal point fopr the next 4 years. At this point G. Hill is not a leader on the court and can't run the offense efficiently. He's strictly a shooting guard who can create his own shot.
Parker is having a down year due to injuries, but when healthy, is a top 5 point guard and capable of carrying the Spurs on his back. I expect him to come back strong and healthy next season and poised to take over the leadership role again.
Parker is better at everything but 3 point shooting.
well pop is givin ghill the keys to do whatever he wants on the court just like when pop gave parker the keys cause he had no pg during the rebuilding phaze....this is just a learning curve and ghill will only get better
parker + splitters rights could get us something....rudy + batum + oden...do it
Parker by far this is a garbage argument
No that I disagree with you, trading Parker may be a good option at some point.
But the learning curve is not something really predictable. Not every player progress every season as Parker did.
Hopefully, Hill will improve but this is far from granted.
George Hill is really good when Tony Parker's been suffering through foot pain all season and is currently unable to play. Seriously, why is this even a question?
Why make this an either this one or that one question? Both are good and with Manu we have a very interesting 3 guard rotation where all 3 can play point or shooting guard.
When all are healthy we probably don't need the traditional back up SG and backup PG.
Significant contributions to multiple championships, NBA Finals MVP, multiple All-Star recognitions, hottie wife...
Vs...
Supposedly defensive minded, long (limbs...among other things), scoring combo-guard?
Parker/Ginobili/Hill is an awesome 3 guard rotation. It's maybe the best in the NBA.
Spurs have a lot of other obvious weaknesses and people want to break what works?
it isnt even comparison. get rid of this thread. its idiotic. parker>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hill
Tony is better, by far. Sometimes the amount of hate Tony receives around here is amazing, considering how much he has done for the team and how good as a player he has become.
I say start hill... trade parker and rebuild.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Hill can run the point when it is necessary but he is better at the 2 so keep him there and keep TP at the point.
Until Hill can take over a game like Tony and just abuse people, we can not compare the two just yet.
+1
Exactly. It's crazy and very disrespecting
I can't remember the last time I saw Hill make a wide-open 3...then again, I only see the national tv games...not our best moments
Seriously? Settle down on GH. He's a good player, but still needs a few years before he's even near what TP offers us. George has the corner three over Tony.. that's it
Parker >>> Hill
terrible thread
+1000
GH can become a force in the future, but as for now, TP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GH
The only thing that GH has is the corner 3. He's developing his offense a lot, getting better in lay-ups and jump-shot, but he's nowhere near TP lvl.
why ppl comparing a 2nd yr ghill to a prime parker for? this is fkn stupid
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
