Reply With Quote
Yeah he's sure is poor laterally
Yeah he's sure is poor laterally
Me bitter ? you are the one that appears bitter here.
There is a difference between placing the blame on him and saying he played horrible with Pacers during POs and horrible with Spurs against Suns. During Suns serie he was not capable to stay in front of Nash and more importantly Nash was saving himself on the D end because dude could not hit the side of a barn during that serie, his +/- were horrible, he shot .36 during dat serie and ulated -54 in +/-. For the Suns, he has to share the blame with everybody, Suns were far superior, he is part of the team that has been destroyed, he is not particularly to blame but this does not change the fact he played poorly, very poorly.
So yes he was a complementary piece, that's the whole point, not at expected level to get the starting job as PG on a team like Spurs or even Pacers. So saying trade Parker for a big, put G Hill as PG and forget to get a long 3 capable to defend from the draft was a bad take.
BTW I never brought the fact he is a PO chocker anywhere, he did not play particularly bad in PO compared to RS.
Hill is not a bad player. He is leading the Pacer's in scoring this year. Grant it, Kawhi is a much better player now. IF he was on another team, Kawhi more than likely would not have developed into the player he is today.
That is why everybody around the league think the Spurs from top to bottom (HC, Asst Coaches, Trainers, Front office, etc.) are the best in the NBA if not the best in all 4 major sports.
Another man's junk could be another man's treasure, aka Danny Green.
Spurs have been doing this for year's, getting high level talent late in the draft or getting talent nobody wants and turning them into very good players.
Yep...that's why Stephen Jackson, for all the disagreements with Pop, never has a bad thing to say about him and the Spurs. If it wasn't for his time with the Spurs, I doubt if Jack would have had the career (and paydays) he had.
It's certainly the case because each draft has some top talents that simply can't be ignored, and I'm sure the Spurs would have been happy to draft Kyrie Irving if they could have (if only for his trade value). The 2011 draft didn't turn out to be exceptional but it was far from bad: Kyrie Irving and Klay Thompson were drafted ahead of Kawhi, and also serviceable guys like Tristan Thompson, Jonas Valanciunas or Kemba Walker. And after Kawhi there were Kenneth Faried, Jimmy Butler or Nikolas Vucevic (just to show the Spurs aren't perfect either: they drafted Cory Joseph just before Jimmy Butler...)
There were a few disappointments as well, like Enes Kanter, Vesely, Biyombo or Fredette. It's not hard to pick 4-5 guys among those that were ranked higher than Kawhi by the Spurs.
But when your #5 guy is available at #15... it's worth giving it a second thought!
Kanter has really been good since he has been trade to OKC. He is probably 2nd best player currently playing on that roster right now (of course negating Durant and Ibaka who are out for the year).
True but for a 3rd pick he's been somewhat of a bust so far. Hopefully the change of scenery will do him good and he'll be able to restart his career (which is likely as he's only 22).
His defense has been Hardenesque ( last season's version ), negating any positive offensive impact.
Amare 2.0. But still, Amare did give the Spurs fits. He is like the new Kevin Love down in OKC. Points, rebounds but no defense. But you have to give him that he does get way more blocks than Love ever did.
We needed a backup PG badly after trading GH, so even if they liked Butler, it wasn't a mistake imo.
The point is you've only brought up two of his worst series in which his team was outmatched anyways. That's not an objective analysis of his ability as a PG. Also what makes you think a complimentary piece can't be a starting PG? Chalmers, Fisher, Rondo, Kidd were all complimentary pieces on recent le teams.
The Spurs drafted to meet the needs they had at the time, but it's quite obvious they'd rather have Butler than CoJo on the roster right now... one is likely to get a max contract, the other is barely a rotation player.
From what I remember CoJo played with RC's kid at Texas for a year? In addition to need there was probably a familiarity factor there. Jimmy's obviously a talent but I'm not sure he develops the same way if Danny and Manu are in front of him in the rotation. CoJo is also two years younger, if he had stayed 4 years this would be rookie season right. Jimmy's had a lot of free reign this year with all the injuries plus plays more than double CoJo's minutes.
Chalmers was playing with the most dominant dude since Jordan who btw was handling the ball most of the time, Rondo during his le run is ten times G Hill and actually was a play maker putting double digit assists every game, Kidd is also very different as he is a play maker, Fisher is the only one worth the comparaison even though like for Chalmers he just gave up the ball soon to Kobe.
And no I don't bring only one serie, I bring his whole time untill this year with the Pacers. For the Spurs he did not play a lot starting PG so my point remains
i will not look, but i'm sure I was against this trade at the time
Kidd was more of a spot-up shooter at that age. You can argue semantics if you'd like, one thing you can't really argue is that none of them were stars. You made it seem like that was a requirement to be a starting PG for SA/Indi and that's not the case.
GHill had Manu to shoulder playmaking duties just like Chalmers/Fish had Bron/Kirby. Not sure why you are acting like he would've been asked to be Stockton for SA. He could've been a 3&D guy tbh.
I was for that trade. Spurs were in desperate need of a SF, as obviously RJ couldn't even remotely fill Bowen's shoes.
And I am not saying this after the fact, but Kawhi was my favorite player from that draft, even before the Spurs drafted. He was a defensive beast and he was the player I thought could bring back that Bowen like defense to this team. His shot mechanics were horrible and that is why he fell so low in the draft. I had him as a top 5 talent and was elated when the Spurs drafted him.
When you look back on that draft, Kawhi was hands down the best defensive SF in that draft. Even judging today, he still is. I appreciated Hill, but with Parker in his prime, the Spurs really didn't need Hill. They needed someone like Kawhi.
A WCF, Finals, and Championship over the past 3 years validates that.
Last edited by Cowboys_Wear_Spurs; 04-08-2015 at 08:58 AM.
i'm curious as to what larry bird would say about the trade/kawhi.
Kidd was averaging 8 assists per game with like 2 steals during 2011 mavs run, he was a spot up shooter and a bad one but still had great playmaking abilities, again a totally different player than Hill. I never said you need to be a star but being a SG playing PG with very low playmaking abilities is not what Pacers needed neither Spurs.
Your argument is stupid regarding Manu... Let me get this straight... you would have played Manu and Hill together with basically Manu playing PG and Hill SG ? The bench would have been ing great with Roger ing Mason Junior, Keith centerpiece Bogan and Garret the great Temple. Your point does not make sense at all. None of the situations (PG + Team) to back up your point makes sense... at all.
Dirk and team ball movement were what got the Mavs a le, Kidd's playmaking and his play in general was complimentary. In the current Spurs system ball movement is vital as well, there's no need for a hero PG as was shown last season. No reason why Hill wouldn't have fit in.
So were Chalmers and Fisher a SG? You're assuming the roster would've stayed the same. Obviously Enrique would've got the Spurs a good, established player in return. Depending on that who knows how the team would've been built. A Hill-Manu backcourt looked pretty good in 2010 tbh.
Except Spurs in 2010, 2011 had not the current spurs system with most of the roster with playmaking abilities... I'm not sure you remember the Spurs roster during G Hill years... have a look tbh it gonna help you realizing what you are saying does not make sense.
I disagree and Kidd's playmaking being "only" complementary, but yes they had more playmakers than 2010-2011 Spurs roster with Barrea, Terry.
Chalmers and Fisher were PG but playmakings were most off their hands. For Parker you wanted a big.... At that time Parker was hitting his prime, GHill not essential to Spurs roster... declining the opportunity to trade Hill for basically getting rid of RJ would have been dumb
Cursory glance
I remember those years fine. The team was transitioning into a more offensive oriented team and the system was in it's early stages of taking over. In hindsight I woud've rather the system have taken over sooner instead of spending those couple of years foolishly relying on 'MVParker' to lead us to disappointing finishes.
So why couldn't Hill had been a PG who deferred playmaking like Chalmers and Fiser did?
Who cares if he was hitting his prime. He was fools gold. We relied on him to be 'MVParker' and he was never good enough to lead us to a le as a clear cut alpha of the team.
Your Parker hate is too much brah... I understand you don't like him but there is not a single quote not biased by your disgusting hate towards him, not sure how anybody would take you seriously on any topic related to him. At this point it's beyond stupidI remember those years fine. The team was transitioning into a more offensive oriented team and the system was in it's early stages of taking over. In hindsight I woud've rather the system have taken over sooner instead of spending those couple of years foolishly relying on 'MVParker' to lead us to disappointing finishes.
So why couldn't Hill had been a PG who deferred playmaking like Chalmers and Fiser did?
Who cares if he was hitting his prime. He was fools gold. We relied on him to be 'MVParker' and he was never good enough to lead us to a le as a clear cut alpha of the team.
Regarding your question, it's because you had nobody to defer playmaking to except Gino who cannot play 48 mn a game... so again my point remains. Spurs move was the clear better move to do even not knowing Kawhi's motor, it's even a better move in retrospect.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
