Spurs' Hill makes date to fix his wayward shot

[midgetonadonkey]

^^^I'm slightly optimistic here.

With Tom Brady in your sig it's obvious you are a band wagoner. yourself.

[GSH]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...29#post2669129 Not word-for-word, but yeah.

I like Hill. I don't question that he has talent, or that he's a good fit for the Spurs. And I think he probably has the mental toughness and work ethic to make himself better. But in my mind, the article reinforces what I have seen in the games so far. (Including tonight's game in Utah.) He's a project. He didn't run the point in college, and they brought him in to play point in the NBA. And, as Popovich says, he is "overwhelmed offensively" and "mentally twisted". That's pretty much the definition of a project.

I've watched Mario Chalmers in a couple of summer league games, and he doesn't look like that. There was an article this week that quoted Larry Bird as saying that Chalmers was "the steal of the draft" this year.

I didn't know anything about Hill when they called his name. After learning about him, and watching him in a few games, I don't think it was a mistake to draft him. But... I do think it was a mistake to draft him ahead of Chalmers. In terms of being an NBA point guard, there is no comparison between the two right now. Maybe at mid-season Hill will have some minutes under his belt, and show improvement. But so will Chalmers. It's going to take some time to see the upside from picking him. And that, once again, is how you usually describe a project player.

I'm not being negative about Hill. He has a lot going for him. Hopefully some day everyone will talk about what a good pick he was. But he's going to have to pick up a lot of boards, and do a whole lot of the "little things" well, if people are going to talk about why he was a better pick than Mario Chalmers. And, unfortunatly, I think you could say all the same things about CDR.

Here's hoping that I'm wrong:

[wisnub]

Put up hundreds of shots a day like u said...and more. Think about all the guard that spurs passed on the 1st round. Oh and watch lots of japanese fighting movies. That should lift up the spirits...

[ElNono]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...29#post2669129 Not word-for-word, but yeah.

I like Hill. I don't question that he has talent, or that he's a good fit for the Spurs. And I think he probably has the mental toughness and work ethic to make himself better. But in my mind, the article reinforces what I have seen in the games so far. (Including tonight's game in Utah.) He's a project. He didn't run the point in college, and they brought him in to play point in the NBA. And, as Popovich says, he is "overwhelmed offensively" and "mentally twisted". That's pretty much the definition of a project.

I've watched Mario Chalmers in a couple of summer league games, and he doesn't look like that. There was an article this week that quoted Larry Bird as saying that Chalmers was "the steal of the draft" this year.

I didn't know anything about Hill when they called his name. After learning about him, and watching him in a few games, I don't think it was a mistake to draft him. But... I do think it was a mistake to draft him ahead of Chalmers. In terms of being an NBA point guard, there is no comparison between the two right now. Maybe at mid-season Hill will have some minutes under his belt, and show improvement. But so will Chalmers. It's going to take some time to see the upside from picking him. And that, once again, is how you usually describe a project player.

I'm not being negative about Hill. He has a lot going for him. Hopefully some day everyone will talk about what a good pick he was. But he's going to have to pick up a lot of boards, and do a whole lot of the "little things" well, if people are going to talk about why he was a better pick than Mario Chalmers. And, unfortunatly, I think you could say all the same things about CDR.

Here's hoping that I'm wrong:

Sorry, but if you don't love Hill, you're automatically a hater and possibly not a Spurs fan. You're not to critique him or question the FO decisions. Thank you.

[anakha]

Sorry, but if you don't love Hill, you're automatically a hater and possibly not a Spurs fan. You're not to critique him or question the FO decisions. Thank you.

Somebody's a little defensive today.

[ElNono]

It took a Tony Parker who already played professionally in France and played PG all his life, about 3 years to become a solid PG under Pop's wing. I would be greatly surprised (and glad), if Hill can be a decent backup by the end of the season.

[ElNono]

Somebody's a little defensive today.

Just calling out the homers...

[GSH]

It took a Tony Parker who already played professionally in France and played PG all his life, about 3 years to become a solid PG under Pop's wing. I would be greatly surprised (and glad), if Hill can be a decent backup by the end of the season.

Now there I disagree. It took TP three years to become an outstanding, starting point guard on the best team in the NBA. Hill doesn't need to live up to that this season. We already have a Tony Parker.

If Hill could get to the point that he can distribute the ball adequatly, without having to think about it, and maybe get to the line some when he's backing up Parker, it would be enough. His quickness, rebounding, and defense would make him preferable to Vaughn in that spot.

The question is, can he run the point this season without having to think about it? At the NBA level, a little bit of hesitation can make a good decision look like a bad one. It's a lot to ask from a guy who was a 2 in college.

[Drom John]

George Hill doesn't have to be better than Jacques Vaughan to improve the team. Hill only has to be better than Damon Stoudamire, the player Hill is slated to replace. If Hill also plays better than Vaughan, then that is a bonus.

At this time, I see Hill as significantly better than Stoudamire, good enough to take all of Stoudamire's time, a bit of Vaughan's when defense is wanted more than ball handling, and good enough to take a minute per game from Parker for rest.

How many of you prefer Stoudamire to Hill?

[bigfundamental21]

It amazes me how so many posters on this forum are ready to write off this kid after 4 summer league games. He's a rookie, trying to learn a new system, adjust to a new role, and on top of that he feels he has to live up to the expectations that the Spurs have for him. He doesn't need fans tearing him down after every game.

I still believe the Spurs made a wise choice in selecting him because, like Manu, even when he isn't playing well offensively, he is going to try to find a way to help his team win. It is the players who refuse to lose that win games, not the ones who put up stats for their own self-glorification.

+1.

This is a learning process for him and he seems to be handling himself like a pro already. He is already learning the idea of continuing to strike the rock. It will not take one blow but a collection of many blows to get the rock to split. Besides, he wasn't drafted to come in and score 30 points a game.

[ceperez]

George Hill doesn't have to be better than Jacques Vaughan to improve the team. Hill only has to be better than Damon Stoudamire, the player Hill is slated to replace. If Hill also plays better than Vaughan, then that is a bonus.

At this time, I see Hill as significantly better than Stoudamire, good enough to take all of Stoudamire's time, a bit of Vaughan's when defense is wanted more than ball handling, and good enough to take a minute per game from Parker for rest.

How many of you prefer Stoudamire to Hill?

Disagree completely. George Hill has definitely got to be better than Jacque Vaughn! If he isn't then we have'nt got a snow ball's chance in to win the next championship.

[Spurs Brazil]

Hill played his best game yesterday and Monroe says nothing

[ElNono]

Now there I disagree. It took TP three years to become an outstanding, starting point guard on the best team in the NBA. Hill doesn't need to live up to that this season. We already have a Tony Parker.

I have to disagree with you. He was a solid PG at that point, that could run an offense through Tim Duncan. He did not have a jumper then and was relatively simple to stop being that he could only drive (hence running 4 down almost every time). He still had major disappearing issues during the playoffs, and he regularly had meetings with Pop's wrath. He was solid. It took him 3 more years after that to develop a jumper and be an All-Star (what I can consider outstanding). As far as being a starter, well, he pretty much was since the get go. That doesn't mean he was solid. Without a Speedy Claxton we don't win in '03.

[ducks]

it took nash longer then tp to become good

[anakha]

That was quick.

ducks must have this sixth sense of detecting any posts criticizing Parker.

[K-State Spur]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...29#post2669129
I've watched Mario Chalmers in a couple of summer league games, and he doesn't look like that. There was an article this week that quoted Larry Bird as saying that Chalmers was "the steal of the draft" this year.
...But... I do think it was a mistake to draft him ahead of Chalmers. In terms of being an NBA point guard, there is no comparison between the two right now. Maybe at mid-season Hill will have some minutes under his belt, and show improvement. But so will Chalmers. It's going to take some time to see the upside from picking him. And that, once again, is how you usually describe a project player.

Hill has been struggling to adjust to being a PG for less than 1 week.

Chalmers PROVED that he struggled running the point over 3 years in Lawrence.

I actually like Chalmers as a prospect as well, but it is true that every time he ran the point in college, his offense went completely to . NEARLY ALL of his success came playing off the ball.

A few solid summer league games (that have been bolstered by trips to the free throw line that he's not going to get in the NBA) does not change that.

That's not to say that he won't be an effective NBA PG. But if anybody is going to worry Hill based on this week's games, there is a mountain of evidence against MC compared to Hill's molehill.

[K-State Spur]

I'll also say that I wonder if our coaches may have had some questions on how Chalmers' defense would translate to the league.

He was a tremendous collegiate defender, but KU's backcourt is/was much more handsy and physical on the perimeter than any NBA official would allow.

[Sway]

Suck it, internets GMs.

This article doesnt prove anything other than Pop is still confident in Hill. I am sure you can find similiar articles, and probably way more positive, about Arthur, CDR, Chalmers, and Greene from their teams.

Im not in the "defend every decision the FO makes to the death" (which you my friend have unfortunately fallen into) clique or the "this is the worst pick in the history of the Draft" clique.

There is a middle ground, you could try to look at the situation with a little objectivity. Hill's performance thus far has been subpar and it is ok to say that, but at the same time, it is not ok to say he is a bust or a bad pick. Judgement must be held at least until after next season when a comparison can be made of Hill, Arthur, CDR, Chalmers, and Greene.

[Harry Callahan]

I also suspect MC's evaluation by the ST posters is strictly on the offensive end of the floor (reading a boxscore the next day).

If Hill can (in his first year) become a Lindsay Hunter type pest on the defensive end, he can be a very significant part of this team. If he can defend the 1 and 2 spot, then that is an additional bonus. I have not seen the SL games to this point (out of town without a good connection), but hopefully I can this week.

I just surprised GH is struggling putting the ball in the hole so far with the natural, smooth shot technique he showed in the college clips of him. Shooting well over 50% was his history. The emphasis on the PG position (full time) with the offensive and defensive emphasis (run the team and pressure the ball) may be gassing him right now.

[ElNono]

This article doesnt prove anything other than Pop is still confident in Hill. I am sure you can find similiar articles, and probably way more positive, about Arthur, CDR, Chalmers, and Greene from their teams.

Im not in the "defend every decision the FO makes to the death" (which you my friend have unfortunately fallen into) clique or the "this is the worst pick in the history of the Draft" clique.

There is a middle ground, you could try to look at the situation with a little objectivity. Hill's performance thus far has been subpar and it is ok to say that, but at the same time, it is not ok to say he is a bust or a bad pick. Judgement must be held at least until after next season when a comparison can be made of Hill, Arthur, CDR, Chalmers, and Greene.

There's no such thing as objectiveness here. You are either with us or against us. You're probably not even a Spur fan.

[ElNono]

If Hill can (in his first year) become a Lindsay Hunter type pest on the defensive end, he can be a very significant part of this team. If he can defend the 1 and 2 spot, then that is an additional bonus. I have not seen the SL games to this point (out of town without a good connection), but hopefully I can this week.

Wow, talk about unrealistic expectations. The only reason Lindsey is still playing in this league is because his defensive prowess. Takes years to defend like that.

[SequSpur]

What the do you expect Pop to say? .. he stated the stroke the young boy who can't play so he can save face take...

Damn you guys are fricking stupid.

[benefactor]

There is a middle ground, you could try to look at the situation with a little objectivity. Hill's performance thus far has been subpar and it is ok to say that, but at the same time, it is not ok to say he is a bust or a bad pick. Judgement must be held at least until after next season when a comparison can be made of Hill, Arthur, CDR, Chalmers, and Greene.

This is a pretty good take on it. There seems to be a lot of extremes regarding Hill...whether people think he is our savior or he is the worst draft bust since Michael Olowokandi. I look at other guards and wonder if picking someone that had already played more point would have been better, but it seems the FO was willing to develop a player like Hill because of all his character intangibles...dedication to his family, commitment to a small school when he could have bailed and gone to a big one after his grandfather died, etc.

As far as overall potential, he has just as good of a chance as any of the other players you mentioned...and he and all those other players have just as good of a chance of failing in the NBA. It has been proven time and time again with players that are drafted and proclaimed as great prospects only to fall. He is our player now and there is nothing that can change that. The best thing to do is try to be as objective as possible and be careful about making any definite statements about him until we get a few months into the season...when we can better gauge how his development has come along.

But I know until then there will be those who choose to dwell in the negative and those who choose to dwell in the positives. IMHO, I have seen more positives than negatives...so I will stay positive about him for now and we shall see what transpires through the rest of the Summer League, the preseason and the first part of the regular season.

[GSH]

Hill has been struggling to adjust to being a PG for less than 1 week.

Chalmers PROVED that he struggled running the point over 3 years in Lawrence.

I actually like Chalmers as a prospect as well, but it is true that every time he ran the point in college, his offense went completely to . NEARLY ALL of his success came playing off the ball.

You're obviously the resident expert on Kansas basketball. I only got to see MC a couple of times in college. So if you say his offense went to when he was at the 1, I believe it. I hope you don't mind a serious question about it: When you say his offense went to , do you mean his own scoring numbers, or was he ineffective running the point? Because if he scored less, but distributed the ball well, that's something you can live with in a backup PG. If the team's performance sucked when he was at the point, that's a different story.

There have been a few people in this thread willing to have a difference of opinion without all the flaming and insults, so I'll risk commenting further. Maybe I'll learn something from the responses.

I watched MC's summer league games, and he came out looking confident and delivered some impressive performances. He seemed to know what he was about, and he was loose. In Hill's first couple of games, he looked tenative and tight. Popovich says he was "overwhelmed" and that he is learning pick and roll defenses.

My personal belief is that you can't have a PG who is tenative at the NBA level of play, no matter what his talent level. (Especially a "pure" PG, instead of a shoot-first PG.) The players are so much quicker, and anticipate so much better, they will pick him apart. So if Hill is having to think while he's trying to distribute the ball, he's going to struggle. And the only way to get to the point of playing loose is through knowledge and repe ion at the position. My opinion, but I don't think it's that radical.

The numbers the two players have put up in summer league aren't what I am looking at. It's their confidence and apparent comfort level on the floor. That may not mean anything by the time the season starts. But at this moment we are closer to the draft than the regular season, and Chalmers looks like he is well ahead of Hill in terms of NBA readiness.

Hill sounds like an intelligent guy in interviews. And the Spurs believe he has the mental toughness they look for. So maybe he can shorten the learning curve, and get the reps he needs before November. And, based on what you said about MC's college play, Hill may ultimately be the better pure PG of the two. Nobody is rooting for him any more than I am.

[K-State Spur]

When you say his offense went to , do you mean his own scoring numbers, or was he ineffective running the point?

Both. For all of his strengths, offensively he was not much more than a spot up shooter who relied on collapsing defenses to get him his shots. I've been shocked by his FTA in the summer league so far because he could go entire months in college without getting to the line that much.

Now, I will say this - when they moved him to the 2, he's a better passer than most 2 guards. But when he played the point, he was tentative and struggled mightily to balance getting his own shot vs. getting the team in the offense, which usually resulted in neither occurring.

KU's offense really took off 2 years ago when they moved Chalmers off the ball and let Sherron Collins - who is a shoot first PG himself - run the point.