Reply With Quote
Neal is not as young as Hill. Been playing pro ball for a while.
George Hill 2008-09
Gary Neal 2010-2011 thus farCode:16:30min 2.0/4.8 40.3%fg 0.3/1.0 32.9% 1.5/1.9 78.1FT% 2.1Reb 1.8A 1.0TO 0.6STL 5.7PPG
Code:15:48min 2.5/5.9 41.9%fg 1.4/3.2 42.2% 0.4/0.4 87.5FT% 0.5 2.4Reb 0.9A 0.8TO 0.5STL 6.6PPG
Not only is Neal averaging more points per game with better percentage and more threes...he's doing it in less minutes. Also turning it over less. We all remember how high we were on Hill his rookie year. Are we hyped about Neal yet or what?
Does this make Hill a little less essential, and perhaps trade-eligible?
Neal is not as young as Hill. Been playing pro ball for a while.
Hill will be a life long spur stop this non sense parker and hill play great together...
George obviously has the better upside, but he doesnt have the high basketball IQ that Neal has.
They have different ways of playing and Hill SHOULD be the better player hands down but Neal plays much more smarter.
No. Hill's younger, more upside. He's also the best perimeter defender on the team.
That would be Manu
Neal is a 26-year old rookie and George is 24.
Neal is a straight-up pure shooter. He gives the effort on D, and actually understands ball movement, but he will never be an impact player in those regards. He'd be an even worse point guard than Hill.
Hill is a combo guard who can do may different things reasonably well.
They serve two different roles; it's not an either/or situation.
This is a very interesting comparison. Neal is definitely better than a rookie George Hill. Neal comes in and plays with energy consistently while staying aggresive. Gary Neal is more mature thus has a more established game whereas George Hill is starting to develop his own. Gary Neal was a great pick up and a steal at 750K a year.
George Hill at around 2mill a year too <---Our backcourt is the best!
Can't trade Hill because then Quinn would have to play real minutes. Hill is playing great now all he has to do no is learn how to pass to Tiago.
Imagine what Gary Neal could do with the 25-30 minutes a game that George Hill gets now.
Ehh, if Hill is 6'6 like Ginobili he's a better defender. Manu does a great job on that end and all, but Hill is capable of locking point guards down and some 2-guards. You can argue that though. Fact is, Gary Neal is a SG who is brought in to score the ball well and not be a liability on defense. George Hill is supposed to be a combo guard who can create and play solid defense. Honestly you've got to keep both of them. You trade Hill for a backup SF (RJ's playing too well this year not to start) and you're basically replacing your need for a backup SF with a need for a backup PG. Plus, once James Anderson's back, you'll have proper depth at every position. You gotta keep Hill and Neal.
Gary neal is also guarding much taller players.....
Are you high????
Not handle the ball?
Not do much on offense except hit open 3s with the occasional drive?
Did you even watch the game tonight? George Hill looked like Tony Parker at times on the court. The only aspect of the game that Neal does better than George is hit the outside shot.
Pop likes his pg's to chunk threes aggressively. Gary Neal fits the bill.
I can tell you haven't watched many spurs games this season.... neal had an off game at point but every other game he is driving and making great passes
Not handle the ball?
Not do much on offense except hit open 3s with the occasional drive?
Did you even watch the game tonight? George Hill looked like Tony Parker at times on the court. The only aspect of the game that Neal does better than George is hit the outside shot.
In Hill's rookie season, only 51% of his points were assisted..he was asked to be a defensive stopper, a PG with multiple responsibilities, and a combo PG/SG overall..he was also put in against starter-caliber players for long stretches..
Neal has 84% of his points assisted, meaning he's strictly a catch&shoot player..while Neal has shown some nice ability to put the ball on the floor and finish, it usually comes from the opponent running him off the 3-point line when he receives a pass, since he's obviously an elite spot-up shooter..if he was put in 1 on 1 situations frequently, he wouldn't succeed, he isn't that type of player..he also plays against bench players..
Hill has the potential to be a top 6th man in the NBA IMO(I don't know if he could ever be a legit, consistent starter)..Neal is a bench player that comes in to provide a spark and great shooting, nothing wrong with that..
Three-point shooting is just about the only area Neal could be better than Hill ... and I'll wait until the end of the season before I give the nod to Neal in that department. That said, the Spurs desperately needed shooting in the offseason and Neal has fit the bill. He has fit pretty damn seamlessly and brings some confidence/ iness the Spurs have lacked in recent years.
It's also not a fair comparison age wise as I mentioned. Neal is not a typical rookie. He has played at a high level.
But as many have mentioned, he is no where near Hill in other areas and there is a role for both.
Nothing Neal does even lets you begin to think you can trade Hill.
on a side note, i also think neal is a great passer. there's been quite a few times this season where he's taken a couple of dribbles and hit a teammate for an easy 2 as opposed to jacking a 3 without thinking.
I think he's doing a great job as a role player and will be interesting what happens when J.A. comes back
i think a better comparison would be neal and brent barry
both had the same roles spot up shooter....
Hill's transition game is light years better than Neal, Hill is vital to this team in transition.
This is like arguing Ellie vs Sean E, they're both different players that fit the scheme.
Are you serious with that pot stiring?
We could trade Duncan too because Neal shoots better from 3.
Hill >>>>>> Neal
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
