George Hill IS a PG in this system.

[chazley]

I guess it's time for another flame-chazley thread, even though I'll probably get more support for this than I did with Mason/Bonner/Jeffries threads, so here we go:

George Hill, in the Spurs system, can and will be a PG more than a SG, next year and for the foreseeable future.

People are heavily mistaken if they think George cannot play PG on this team.

Let me ask you a question for all you people who think George isn't good enough to play PG:

If you replaced George Hill with Derek Fisher in the Lakers starting lineup, they would be much improved and would have an even better chance at a championship right (imo)? Fisher's greatest attribute is his leadership, and he can do that from the bench. My point is, George Hill, in the right system, can be a championship-caliber starting PG.

"Lakers and Spurs have two completely different systems, so your point is moot." the haters would probably say. However, I honestly don't think they're drastically different in terms of the PG position. Neither system (Spurs/Lakers) needs a guy to average 10+ assists a game. What they need is a guy to innitiate the offense, average 6-8 assists, and hit open J's, all of which Hill is capable of. The Spurs PG and the Lakers PG right now are very different. Fisher and Parker have completely different games. However, I believe a George Hill-type of PG can still be successful in this system, much in the same way Avery was (yes, I am aware that Hill and Avery are two very different players, but so are Parker/Avery, my point being different types of PG's can be successful in this system). I actually think George Hill's ability to hit the 3 and play much better defense at a variety of positions might be a much better fit than Parker potentially, depending on how much he is leaned on in the future.

Let me get this straight, first of all: I don't want Parker off of this team. In fact, the dimension he gives us as one of the best scoring penetrating PG's of possibly all-time cannot be replaced. His importance to this system is huge. At this very moment, Parker to Hill is a downgrade but over time, might be a better fit.

However, in the event we have an opportunity to trade Parker for a really good big or wing, we should be confident that we can hand over the reins to George. He needs time in the starting PG role. Our best stretch of the season came with George playing PG, people seem to forget that. Putting the ball in Ginobili's hands with George bringing it up and letting Manu initiate the offense made us VERY good with Parker out.

And Ginobili is a very big part of why George in this system playing PG can be very successful. In February-March, when Manu decided to be the best SG in the league while Parker was out, Manu got to handle the ball. We need to move back to that. I think Manu/RJ play a lot better with George running the point, and with wings like Manu and RJ playing at a high level we are a very difficult team to guard.

Duncan plays better with Parker running the point. However, I believe George can still be as good with Timmy as Tony is with Timmy. I think people underestimate how good the Parker/Duncan combo is. Their games complement each other very nicely. However, George can get to that point with Tim, but he will have to do it differently, mainly by his 3-pt shooting that doesn't include the corner and his driving ability when he cuts down the middle and off of backcuts. He also must improve his entry passes. They were subpar last season, but that was a team-wide problem, and something I expect everyone to improve on.

Post is getting long, so let's discuss it so I can respond to some of your responses.

[Pauleta14]

You're right on many points, but you forget that Manu is better with Parker next to him... (pts, ast, %...)

Kori or timvp once gave some stats about it.

He is more efficient when he has a scoring threat next to him.
He was great when Tony was out, but he can't play that way the whole 82 games + PO anymore!
I love Hill, but others teams will never see him as much of a danger than Tony is.
That changes the whole deal for opposite teams when Tony is on the floar, he creates so much space...

The best solution IMO is Tony and George in the starting 5 and Manu off the bench!
(with Pop managing minutes so that George also plays back up PG along with Manu)

[benefactor]

Sorry attention , I only read the first sentence. I'm sure it's a cool story though.

[Interrohater]

I think you're missing the point. It's not CAN George Hill play the point, it's SHOULD George Hill play the point. He's done a fine job at PG so far, but with the emergence of Temple, will GH become the starting SG? One of your examples actually proved, to me at least, that George should be playing SG when Manu is in to initiate the offense.

George Hill is an impressive player, considering where he came from, but methinks that he might be even more impressive in his natural role of SG.

[Bender]

Sorry attention , I only read the first sentence. I'm sure it's a cool story though.

I stopped after this sentence:

If you replaced George Hill with Derek Fisher in the Lakers starting lineup, they would be much improved and would have an even better chance at a championship

So Hill plays for the Lakers, and if Fisher replaced him, the Lakers would be a better team. Ok, good job of arguing his point.

[Solid D]

5 posts and nary a comment about defense other than about Hill's general defensive ability versus TP. I would like to see some banter regarding George Hill's ability to defend some of the better opposing PGs.

I'm saying this to help you develop your argument. (hint: remember smaller opposing 1s such as Nash and Brooks).

[TheSullyMonster]

Neither system (Spurs/Lakers) needs a guy to average 10+ assists a game.

Considering there are only three of those guys in the league right now(per last season stats...two if you only count the playoffs), I certainly hope not!

[cantthinkofanything]

5 posts and nary a comment about defense other than about Hill's general defensive ability versus TP. I would like to see some banter regarding George Hill's ability to defend some of the better opposing PGs.

I'm saying this to help you develop your argument. (hint: remember smaller opposing 1s such as Nash and Brooks).

I think this is the crux of the whole matter. IMO, the concern about Hill playing point guard doesn't have much to do on the offensive end. As many have said, you can have success without a 10+ assist guy and also without a penetrator. With Manu on the court, you get an assist guy and someone that can get to the rim.

The question I have is whether Hill's defensive issues with guards like Nash and Brooks are related to lack of experience or more to physical limiations.

[Mark in Austin]

Sorry attention , I only read the first sentence. I'm sure it's a cool story though.

No worries. Trust him. He is the #1 poster, after all.

[beachwood]

You're dead wrong that Hill is better than Fisher. Fisher is probably the most underrated PG in the league. He went through every top PG in the playoffs last year and held his own. Hill was utterly demolished by Nash.

[alchemist]

If you replaced George Hill with Derek Fisher in the Lakers starting lineup, they would be much improved and would have an even better chance at a championship right (imo)? Fisher's greatest attribute is his leadership, and he can do that from the bench. My point is, George Hill, in the right system, can be a championship-caliber starting PG.

Fisher has ice in his veins, his clutchness is something you can't find in most players let alone PG's.

[Solid D]

Fisher is like the Guard version of Robert Horry. One of the smartest, cagiest, clutchest Guards in basketball today.

[chazley]

Like I said, it's my opinion that if you put George Hill into the Lakers starting lineup they would still be championship contenders. Honestly I think Fisher is the only weak spot on that team.

And yes, the biggest positive for starting Hill is his defense. Our starting backcourt would have two above average defenders in Manu/Hill, which would improve our faltering defense.

And no, last year during our February/March run, Manu was not playing PG more than George when they were on the court together. George was bringing it up and Manu initiated the offense.

[chazley]

Sorry attention , I only read the first sentence. I'm sure it's a cool story though.

Obv scared to respond to me cause I'll probably crush whatever he says, but responding to what you said... everytime I post something spectacular, the 80% of posters on here who are very uninformed about basketball in general bash me. Even though I keep slapping them backwards, they still try to argue my points even though I prove them wrong.

I'm always willing to change my viewpoint. If someone comes up with a good argument, I am willing to say I'm wrong.

[FkLA]

Hill isnt a PG, it doesnt matter that the Spurs view him as such. Doesnt matter that he was a back-up PG for the first 1.5 yrs of his career and that he was the Spurs starting PG during the second half and playoffs of last season. As long as Spurstalk keeps saying he isnt a PG it cant possibly be true.

Just like as long as Spurstalk dismisses the numerous rumors that clearly point towards Parker jetting after next season, they wont be true and the Spurs and Parker will magically agree to a fair extension and everyone will live happily ever after in Candyland.

ps Hill didnt get 'destroyed' by Nash anymore than the rest of the team got destroyed by the Phoenix Suns team.

[Leonard Curse]

You're right on many points, but you forget that Manu is better with Parker next to him... (pts, ast, %...)

Kori or timvp once gave some stats about it.

He is more efficient when he has a scoring threat next to him.
He was great when Tony was out, but he can't play that way the whole 82 games + PO anymore!
I love Hill, but others teams will never see him as much of a danger than Tony is.
That changes the whole deal for opposite teams when Tony is on the floar, he creates so much space...

The best solution IMO is Tony and George in the starting 5 and Manu off the bench!
(with Pop managing minutes so that George also plays back up PG along with Manu)

of course hes better with tony hes only played 5 damn games with george hill!!!! how does anyone not get that!!! if we played a whole season w/hill ill bet you that will def change. the equation is becoming too dificult and complex because of people in denial the main basis for this equation is the outcomes of games when both pointguards played the same position. George hill clearly helped us win bigger games in his SECOND YEAR! also how do you know manu cant play that way the whole time we havent tried it yet its not like were going to play him 40 minutes and it might just keep him fresh he doesnt get exhausted its usually an injury that stops him or slows him down

[Leonard Curse]

You're dead wrong that Hill is better than Fisher. Fisher is probably the most underrated PG in the league. He went through every top PG in the playoffs last year and held his own. Hill was utterly demolished by Nash.

are you kidding me they were trying to replace him, ill tell you who went and got him through every pg its a 7ft spainard a rapist and a guy addicted to jellybeans, oh and a little bit from that 7ft decaying 20 year old, thats who got fisher through rondo cant shoot worth a damn nash did well just gasol bynum and L.O were to damn big.

[EricB]

Fisher is like the Guard version of Robert Horry. One of the smartest, cagiest, clutchest Guards in basketball today.

Tis a shame he turned that deal down from the Spurs in 1999

[benefactor]

Obv scared to respond to me cause I'll probably crush whatever he says, but responding to what you said... everytime I post something spectacular, the 80% of posters on here who are very uninformed about basketball in general bash me. Even though I keep slapping them backwards, they still try to argue my points even though I prove them wrong.

I'm always willing to change my viewpoint. If someone comes up with a good argument, I am willing to say I'm wrong.

.........

[chazley]

You're dead wrong that Hill is better than Fisher. Fisher is probably the most underrated PG in the league. He went through every top PG in the playoffs last year and held his own. Hill was utterly demolished by Nash.

This is not true. Fisher has had a terrible shooting percentage the past 2 playoffs and only made up for it with 2 different very clutch games, 1 in each of his past 2 finals. Other than that, the only above-average thing he brings to a team is leadership, which I won't deny is very important at PG, especially on that Lakers team with Kobe.

[chazley]

.........

Man you really post some quality stuff. I can see why the very smart people here at Spurstalk made you second-team allstar.

Would love to see what kind of quality your other 8700 posts have. Has to be must-read material.

[benefactor]

Man you really post some quality stuff. I can see why the very smart people here at Spurstalk made you second-team allstar.

Would love to see what kind of quality your other 8700 posts have. Has to be must-read material.

Award and post count insults. I see you are internets advanced.

[BadMotorscooter]

Hill is not better than Fisher, when all aspects of the game are taken into to account. You can make hypothetical situations with any player any other teams but its a waste of time. The Lakers have something very special and thats with Fisher at the helm. The man has what? 4 or 5 rings as a starting PG? This is an apples and oranges comparision. If you are trying to make the point that Hill is a PG, than go wwith that, but dont try and make your case by supplementing him with another player on another team.

[chazley]

Hill is not better than Fisher, when all aspects of the game are taken into to account. You can make hypothetical situations with any player any other teams but its a waste of time. The Lakers have something very special and thats with Fisher at the helm. The man has what? 4 or 5 rings as a starting PG? This is an apples and oranges comparision. If you are trying to make the point that Hill is a PG, than go wwith that, but dont try and make your case by supplementing him with another player on another team.

What 'aspects' of the game is Fisher better at than Hill, other than leadership? It's not 3-point shooting, maybe ball-handling, not passing...

[Solid D]

Like I said, it's my opinion that if you put George Hill into the Lakers starting lineup they would still be championship contenders. Honestly I think Fisher is the only weak spot on that team.

And yes, the biggest positive for starting Hill is his defense. Our starting backcourt would have two above average defenders in Manu/Hill, which would improve our faltering defense.

And no, last year during our February/March run, Manu was not playing PG more than George when they were on the court together. George was bringing it up and Manu initiated the offense.

What I had hoped to see from you is some sort of speculation as to how Hill would defend opposing quick and fast Western Conf PGs such as Steve Nash, Aaron Brooks, JJ Barea or Frenchie Boubois. Steve Nash sliced Georgie to ribbons in the playoffs, Brooks gave him fits and Boubois gave Hill and his p/r partners all they could handle in the Game 6 near come-back. Hill is still learning the offensive and defensive position of PG. He doesn't run the middle of the floor well in transition with the ball in his hands, just yet. He hasn't even learned the right time to pass to the wings before he loses his angles (up to the FT line) on the break.

He is learning the position...he's not there yet... and defensively, he has not been able to guard the waterbugs.