George Hill is a PG

[FkLA]

Whether yall like it or not. The sooner yall realize that and stop screaming "oh no he's a SG" the easier it will be for yall. The team considers him a PG and has been groomed as one. He has shown that he can and will take over the reins once TP leaves especially if hes playing alongside a guy like Manu that can help him shoulder the load when it comes to distributing. I dont really care if he can do the things Tony can do as long as the team is still winning, which when given the opportunity as a starter has been the case.

Furthermore trading him would be idiotic. He doesnt have enough value to net the Spurs anything that would put them back into contention, TP might. If the Spurs want to shake things up to give it one last shot trading Hill is not the answer. Or if they want to start the rebuilding already, Parker is older and has a bigger contract...he could also net young prospects. None of those things apply to Hill. Regardless of what path the Spurs choose, its time to give that the reins already imho.

[Duncan2177]

Whether yall like it or not. The sooner yall realize that and stop screaming "oh no he's a SG" the easier it will be for yall. The team considers him a PG and has been groomed as one. He has shown that he can and will take over the reins once TP leaves especially if hes playing alongside a guy like Manu that can help him shoulder the load when it comes to distributing. I dont really care if he can do the things Tony can do as long as the team is still winning, which when given the opportunity as a starter has been the case.

Furthermore trading him would be idiotic. He doesnt have enough value to net the Spurs anything that would put them back into contention, TP might. If the Spurs want to shake things up to give it one last shot trading Hill is not the answer. Or if they want to start the rebuilding already, Parker is older and has a bigger contract...he could also net young prospects. None of those things apply to Hill. Regardless of what path the Spurs choose, its time to give that the reins already imho.

[Ditty]

There's going to be long and early off seasons, the day George Hill becomes the starting t guard for his team. Unless this team doesn't want to compete,tank, and clear house, and not take on salary, I guess he is the best bet then.

[baseline bum]

He's the point guard but he needs Manu to shoulder the load distributing? He may be the point in name next year, but only because Holt got cheap and salary dumped the best point guard the team has had since Silas.

[will_spurs]

He has shown that he can and will take over the reins once TP leaves especially if hes playing alongside a guy like Manu that can help him shoulder the load when it comes to distributing.

So you mean he's doing fine when there's a guy who actually can play PG next to him? So what will the Spurs do when Manu is on the bench (which is going to be 20+ mpg in the coming years) or injured (which is going to be quite often judging from the past)?

The whole point, that you nicely push under the rug, is that right now Hill is a back-up PG only because he plays alongside Manu. If Parker goes, Hill will not have that luxury any more. Unfortunately he has proven in the past that he has very limited ball-handling skills, barely enough to bring the ball up the court without a TO. He makes stupid decisions as the primary ball-handler at an alarming rate. He has no court vision to speak of. He can barely run the P&R with Duncan (despite Duncan being great and experienced at it). In short, he is not a PG, but you'd have to actually watch games to know that.

[ChumpDumper]

OK, he's a point guard.

He's just not very good at it.

[timtonymanu]

Yeah coz having a 34 year old Manu shoulder the load isn't idiotic.

[baseline bum]

He's a point guard the way Bonner is a bigman.

[FkLA]

He's the point guard but he needs Manu to shoulder the load distributing? He may be the point in name next year, but only because Holt got cheap and salary dumped the best point guard the team has had since Silas.

No. I didnt say he needs Manu to shoulder the load, I said having a player like Manu who can distribute so well will only help him in his transition.

So you mean he's doing fine when there's a guy who actually can play PG next to him? So what will the Spurs do when Manu is on the bench (which is going to be 20+ mpg in the coming years) or injured (which is going to be quite often judging from the past)?

The whole point, that you nicely push under the rug, is that right now Hill is a back-up PG only because he plays alongside Manu. If Parker goes, Hill will not have that luxury any more. Unfortunately he has proven in the past that he has very limited ball-handling skills, barely enough to bring the ball up the court without a TO. He makes stupid decisions as the primary ball-handler at an alarming rate. He has no court vision to speak of. He can barely run the P&R with Duncan (despite Duncan being great and experienced at it). In short, he is not a PG, but you'd have to actually watch games to know that.

Barely enough ball-handling to bring the ball up the court? Jesus christ. He certainly isnt Tony Parker, but wow the levels SpursTalk goes to to throw this guy under the bus are hilarious. And yeah way to stand up for your boy TP by simply "watching" the games were he got limited minutes as a back-up...did you conveniently not watch the second half+playoffs of the 09-10 season were he was a starter and only shared PG duties with Manu(as opposed to both Tony&Manu), like he would be doing if given the reins?

Didnt he put up something like 15+ ppg and 4+ apg during that stretch?Thats basically what Tony put up his first 5-6 yrs in the league. Its not like hed be replacing a floor general like Nash or Kidd, hed be replacing another scoring PG.

But most importantly the Spurs function just fine with him at the point. At the end of the day I dont care if he can or cant do certain things as well as Tony, what I care about is the Spurs winning. And from the sample size we have thus far theres nothing that indicates the Spurs would drop off dramatically with him in place of Tony. In fact the win percentage is higher with him starting than with him not, and thats without a solid player(s) that Parker would ideally net if traded.

[TDMVPDPOY]

But most importantly the Spurs function just fine with him at the point. At the end of the day I dont care if he can or cant do certain things as well as Tony, what I care about is the Spurs winning. And from the sample size we have thus far theres nothing that indicates the Spurs would drop off dramatically with him in place of Tony. In fact the win percentage is higher with him starting than with him not, and thats without a solid player(s) that Parker would ideally net if traded.

removing parker, and more of ghill and ginoboli or just ginoboli, you will see the offense open up and players receiving more touches...the offense runs smooth when ginoboli has the ball and setting up the plays besides his stupid passes.

what we need is to get rid of parker, blair, bonner, rj....

im expecting huge things from splitter and neal for the 2nd seasons here, as for james anderson he still has to fight for his spot, as for blair if he was same height as big davis, i dont think his good as davis...

[will_spurs]

Barely enough ball-handling to bring the ball up the court? Jesus christ. He certainly isnt Tony Parker, but wow the levels SpursTalk goes to to throw this guy under the bus are hilarious.

I'm definitely throwing Hill under the bus as a PG, I'm also throwing him under the bus as a center, by the way... because it is not his position. He is a shooting guard and a serviceable one, he has the potential to be a starting SG on a NBA team.

And yeah way to stand up for your boy TP by simply "watching" the games were he got limited minutes as a back-up...did you conveniently not watch the second half+playoffs of the 09-10 season were he was a starter and only shared PG duties with Manu(as opposed to both Tony&Manu), like he would be doing if given the reins?

Didnt he put up something like 15+ ppg and 4+ apg during that stretch?Thats basically what Tony put up his first 5-6 yrs in the league. Its not like hed be replacing a floor general like Nash or Kidd, hed be replacing another scoring PG.

Don't let facts get in the way of your little fantasy.

So let's have a look: do you mean the 09-10 playoffs where he averaged 0.7 assists in 34.4 minutes? Or are you talking about some fantasy playoffs where he actually averaged a decent amount of assists? He had one good series (I'm charitable) against Dallas where he indeed scored 29 and 21, with 4 assists in 6 games... which is consistent with what? With being a shooting guard! Shocking!

I'm going to be really nice and take his best 23-game stretch at the end of the 09-10 regular season, when he played 36.7 minutes per game (which by Spurs standards is a lot of minutes--Parker never averaged that over a whole season), he scored 16.3 ppg and got 4.3 apg. Now I'm not going to be so nice with Parker and will look at his numbers over his whole 2nd season, when he was 3 years younger than Hill: 33.8 mpg, 15.5 ppg, 5.3 apg. Hill during his best stretch wasn't even as good as Parker over a whole regular season...

Back to my point: Hill being a serviceable PG isn't supported by either numbers or watching games. He is a SG, and is never going to run the point for the Spurs. And I believe he's actually being shopped harder than Parker at this point in time. Hill actually regressed during the 10-11 reg season compared to 09-10 (all his numbers are down except FT%), and didi a nice disappearing act of his own in the postseason (all numbers down except rebounding despite averaging 3 more minutes per game).

[SpursIndonesia]

George Hill is a decent scorer, borderline starter for NBA level, especially for non contending team. But as a PG ?? Totally SUCKS with caps.

He's a guard with above average defense, average offense, and non existant court vision (TP's tunnel vision is still much better), while practically useless in a two man game with bigman that any PG must be capable of in NBA level compe ion. His passing skills is lacking, while the ballhandling skills is inadequate as the main ballhandler in the team starting line up.

[FkLA]

I'm definitely throwing Hill under the bus as a PG, I'm also throwing him under the bus as a center, by the way... because it is not his position. He is a shooting guard and a serviceable one, he has the potential to be a starting SG on a NBA team.

He has the potential to be a starting scoring PG.

Don't let facts get in the way of your little fantasy.

So let's have a look: do you mean the 09-10 playoffs where he averaged 0.7 assists in 34.4 minutes? Or are you talking about some fantasy playoffs where he actually averaged a decent amount of assists? He had one good series (I'm charitable) against Dallas where he indeed scored 29 and 21, with 4 assists in 6 games... which is consistent with what? With being a shooting guard! Shocking!

I'm going to be really nice and take his best 23-game stretch at the end of the 09-10 regular season, when he played 36.7 minutes per game (which by Spurs standards is a lot of minutes--Parker never averaged that over a whole season), he scored 16.3 ppg and got 4.3 apg. Now I'm not going to be so nice with Parker and will look at his numbers over his whole 2nd season, when he was 3 years younger than Hill: 33.8 mpg, 15.5 ppg, 5.3 apg. Hill during his best stretch wasn't even as good as Parker over a whole regular season...

Dont play dumb now, I obviously didnt mean to include the 09-10 playoffs. It doesnt take a genius to figure out that when hes getting limited minutes at point because hes sharing that load with both Manu&Tony his assists take a huge dip. I clearly stated that when hes only had to share that load with Manu hes proven to be more than serviceable running the point though, which really cant be disputed. And thats all that matters because Parker wouldnt be on the team any longer if Hill is given the reins.

And noone is saying Hill>Parker. Parker is obviously better, all Im saying is that from the sample size weve seen nothing suggests that the Spurs would be a disaster if Hill ran the point. Its been the complete opposite. This isnt about Hil's numbers/talent vs Parker's numbers/talent....its about how well the Spurs team plays with Hill at the point vs. Tony at the point. Theres no big discrepancy there, and like I said that doesnt even take into account the assets trading Parker would net the team. Ill take a significant upgrade in the frontcourt+Hill running the point over the current frontcourt+Parker running the point.

Back to my point: Hill being a serviceable PG isn't supported by either numbers or watching games. He is a SG, and is never going to run the point for the Spurs. And I believe he's actually being shopped harder than Parker at this point in time. Hill actually regressed during the 10-11 reg season compared to 09-10 (all his numbers are down except FT%), and didi a nice disappearing act of his own in the postseason (all numbers down except rebounding despite averaging 3 more minutes per game).

The Spurs drafted him as a PG. Currently consider him a PG. Have groomed him as a PG. He will run the point for the Spurs sooner than later, book it. Sure, he will be a scoring PG whos biggest strength will always be putting up points (just like Parker)...and not some floor general, but he will be a PG nonetheless.

Also you do know Parker's numbers dropped across the board from his 2nd to 3rd season as well right? And that his inability to adjust to LA clogging up the lane was the biggest reason the Spurs were ousted in the 04' playoffs? I wonder if these same people that are ready to give on up Hill already had those same sentiments about Parker then. Parker homers of all people should know that you shouldnt give up on a player so soon.

[TJastal]

OK, he's a point guard.

He's just not very good at it.

Isn't a point guard's main job to make others around him better? If so, then Hill is the superior "point guard".

Manu’s numbers almost across the board are superior when playing with Hill instead of Parker. This pattern also holds true with Gary Neal. Neal is a much more efficient player with Hill creating shots for him. His +/- goes from a negative playing with Parker to a +4.5 playing with Hill

http://www.playmakeronline.com/2011/...arker-vs-hill/

He also has shown he can distribute the ball as the "point guard" and has much room to improve in that area.

George has a huge positive jump when they play apart rising to +5.5. George also becomes a distributor when they play separately with his assist average jumping to 4.5 from 1.9, when they play together.

When Manu and George play together, George’s stats explode. George’s +/- jumps to a elite point guard level of 8.7. His scoring climbs to 15.1 points per game and his field goal percentage is at 51%

I know you and the other Parker homers must find this data utterly offensive, because you keep either ignoring it or downplaying it but this clearly shows why the spurs winning % has been so high with George Hill running the "point guard" whenever Parker has been out of the lineup.

[ElNono]

I know you and the other Parker homers must find this data utterly offensive, because you keep either ignoring it or downplaying it but this clearly shows why the spurs winning % has been so high with George Hill running the "point guard" whenever Parker has been out of the lineup.

You mean when he drops the ball to Manu and lets him create for him and others. Fetch me his numbers when he's not playing with Manu or Tony...

And BTW, people are free to convince themselves of anything. This kid is a SG. That's the position he played all his young life before getting to the Spurs.

He could eventually make a transition to PG, but for that he needs to improve in too many areas and drop some bad habits.

[ChumpDumper]

So Hill plays the point great when someone else is actually playing the point?

Awesome.

The Spurs should make Manu do more in his final years. He has proved his body can take it.

[will_spurs]

Also you do know Parker's numbers dropped across the board from his 2nd to 3rd season as well right? And that his inability to adjust to LA clogging up the lane was the biggest reason the Spurs were ousted in the 04' playoffs?

All Parker's numbers went down between 2nd and 3rd season, well except assists and rebounds but I guess that's not very important, is it?

And Parker is pretty bad whenever teams clog the lane, he hasn't figured that out yet, as was quite on display this year against Memphis. That's why having a threat in the post, or some guys actually hitting some shots from outside every once in a while is quite important...

But back to Hill, he's always been a SG. Pop deciding he was a PG because he needed one doesn't make Hill a PG, same way it doesn't make Mason Jr a PG. That's just not how it works.

[Solid D]

Until George learns more of the basics of playing lead guard, he will struggle. Just one look at Hill trying to run the break gives you all you need to see regarding his struggles. It's ugly. When you have the ball in the middle with 2 guys running the wings, you must make a decision when you reach the FT line with the ball: pass, shoot or call it off and run a play. If you don't, you lose your passing angle.

[SenorSpur]

I admit that in his rookie year, I thought Hill would easily make the transition into full-time backup PG. I haven't forgotten how he filled in admirably for a long stretch of games, when Parker was out with an injury. He wasn't as good of a shooter then, as he is now. However, he was conscious of getting into the paint, setting up his teammates and kicking the ball out to open teammates. While he made his mistakes, he seemed to run the offense rather smoothly.

Then something funny happened to him as he grew as a player. He morphed back into a shoot-first combo guard. One who is aggressive at home, but passive on the road. In my mind, his regression as a backup PG has everything to do with his emergence as a scoring, combo guard. I believe this is as much the fault of Pop, as it is with Hill himself. Pop has encouraged him to be selfish, to look for his own opportunities - much to the dismay of those wanting to see him effectively run a pick-n-roll.

Hill is a PG alright - but only on NBA 2K. You can thank Pop for that.

[Cane]

Parker isn't much of a PG either tbh. 31 assists to 20 turnovers is not running the offense and getting the team involved well. Whereas Conley was more PG-like with 37 assists and 13 turnovers.

We're seeing what kind of player Parker really is especially with Duncan playing less minutes and declining himself. Parker's PG skills are overrated on this board and readily replaced in this era of score-first guards.

[will_spurs]

Parker isn't much of a PG either tbh. 31 assists to 20 turnovers is not running the offense and getting the team involved well. Whereas Conley was more PG-like with 37 assists and 13 turnovers.

We're seeing what kind of player Parker really is especially with Duncan playing less minutes and declining himself. Parker's PG skills are overrated on this board and readily replaced in this era of score-first guards.

Definitely makes sense to use a 4-game sample to asses the worth of a 10-year multiple All-Star Finals MVP vet. Most definitely.

[Leetonidas]

Parker isn't much of a PG either tbh. 31 assists to 20 turnovers is not running the offense and getting the team involved well. Whereas Conley was more PG-like with 37 assists and 13 turnovers.

We're seeing what kind of player Parker really is especially with Duncan playing less minutes and declining himself. Parker's PG skills are overrated on this board and readily replaced in this era of score-first guards.

lol using one series as evidence that Parker isn't a PG.

Anyone with a brain can see that Hill ing SUCKS at running the offense and has to have Manu set everything up for him and Tony runs that like a man. Just because he doesn't average 10+ assists doesn't mean because he doesn't dominate the ball the entire game like Paul, Williams, or Rose.

George Hill is not a PG. He is a shooting guard. If George Hill is a PG then so is Monta Ellis.

[Cane]

Definitely makes sense to use a 4-game sample to asses the worth of a 10-year multiple All-Star Finals MVP vet. Most definitely.

More like a a 6-game sample in a first round exit where the Spurs were favored to win. Parker's PG skills are overrated imo. His game was based around using his athleticism and Duncan which both are not what they used to be. Numbers don't lie.

[Cane]

lol using one series as evidence that Parker isn't a PG.

Anyone with a brain can see that Hill ing SUCKS at running the offense and has to have Manu set everything up for him and Tony runs that like a man. Just because he doesn't average 10+ assists doesn't mean because he doesn't dominate the ball the entire game like Paul, Williams, or Rose.

George Hill is not a PG. He is a shooting guard. If George Hill is a PG then so is Monta Ellis.

lol giving Parker a free pass for playing like garbage in the first round

Hill's not much of a PG either.

Parker's negative impact goes beyond his bad assist/turnovers numbers as well. Anyone with a brain can see that Parker was one of the main problems the Spurs had in that series and a lot of it was unforced nonsense.

[hater]

He's the point guard but he needs Manu to shoulder the load distributing? He may be the point in name next year, but only because Holt got cheap and salary dumped the best point guard the team has had since Silas.

the best point guard the team has had since Silas was run out of the building by a couple of 8th seed scrubs in round 1.

Time to make changes. Time to put Hill in his deserved starting PG role.