Reply With Quote
We're probably gonna disagree no matter what you and I say, so let's just agree to disagree.
I still believe Lakers would win a championship with Hill at PG.
He's a better leader, better under pressure, more experince, better ball handler, and a better passer...what more do you want from a point gaurd? A better shooter? Thats why Hill is an SG.
We're probably gonna disagree no matter what you and I say, so let's just agree to disagree.
I still believe Lakers would win a championship with Hill at PG.
Maybe. But on the flipside I know we wouldnt have gotten swept by the Suns with Fisher at the helm with his experience. He is a Horry type player as someone else stated earlier in this thread. Hill disappeared many times in the playoffs....guys like Horry and Fisher rise to the occasion. Fisher would have smacked Nash around and got in his head like he did for the Lakers in the WCF's.
Good post.
I will say that I agree Nash/Roddy tore us a new one in the playoffs, but you have to remember Tony was also guarding them and Hill wasn't the only one playing them. Also, Hill was only a second year player last year, and when he figures out how to use his length and lateral quickness effectively he will be much more effective on the defensive end against these types of players. I agree that Hill, at this point, is a below-par fast break PG, and has alot of work to do. In a half-court game though, he's got the skills right now to run this offense, although Parker is better at it.
Comparing Fisher and Hill is silly. Fisher is a great starting PG for the Lakers (well two years ago he was even better) - He sucks from time to time but who cares , the guy makes the clutch shot when it matters. Hill has to prove that he can play the point a whole season.
Hills sucess can be attributed to Manu who was really running the point for us when Tony was out.
I like Hill but I have not seen him really able to create off the dribble and I have not seen him break down defenses and get other player easy baskets.
Which are two things Parker does well.
Hill isn't a PG at this point and it's proven by the fact that he put up better numbers when playing SG. His defensive versatility is overrated at this point, IMO. He can guard multiple positions, but that doesn't mean he guards multiple positions well.
Take Fisher off the lakers and a good chunk of his effectiveness goes straight down the toilet. He'd probably average at least 1 foul more per game and probably get only half the flops called in his favor.
Just checked my theory, appears I'm correct.
2 out of the 3 years Fisher didn't play for the lakers, he averaged almost 3 fouls per game (the highest for his career)
With the lakers he always averaged much less.
And then consider the fact that Fisher's dirty play (which entails hand checking, grabbing, pulling, etc) has seen an enormous increase in the last 3 years in order to counter his decline in lateral quickness and athleticism.
For his foul rate to remain steady at 2-2.25 despite this truly speaks volumes about how much of his effectiveness has been bolstered by simply being a part of the nba's most favored team (by refs/Stern ).
Where's all the naysayers at? You guys scared or what?
how come manu runs more point when hill is out there then hill if hill is the pg
They're probably all lining up to give Fisher a handjob
It's just amazing to me people throw around all the time that he can't be a PG, then shy away from a discussion about it.
Just because it's a no brainer for anyone who has seen him run the point!
He makes Tony looks like Nash...
+ He HAS to want to be a PG! It's not the case if you read between the lines...
He wants/can be a great SG and his versatility allows him to bck up Tony for short periods.
If the Spurs get rid of Tony (or he leaves), they will have to find a TRUE point guard for the future if we still want to be contenders...
My only issue with you telling me he can be a point guard is me knowing that he can't be a dominant one. Yes, TP isn't a prototypical point. He's not pass-first, but at least one can say that he has spent the bulk of his pro career, France included, as being a point guard. He has an understanding of what a true PG needs, and while one can say that his low assists numbers pale to Nash or Paul, I counter with the fact, that when he attacks, he gets to the rim and hits a high percentage of his drives. Also, when it comes to GHill, he's more combo guard than point. He has spent the bulk of his basketball life as a 2 guard and as such, there are more responsibilities he needs to get to become a solid 1. If you say, well Ginobili can do it, I counter with the fact, that Ginobili has been doing it since Italy and with his National Team. In essence, it took time. The time needed for GHill won't be fast enough for Tim Duncan's career. In order to maximize the time left in Tim's career, then Pop has to go with the best foundation that he can. That foundation includes TP and GHill's contributions as a combo guard augment the Spurs. While the depth he provides makes the team stronger, if he was the main point...I feel, the team would be weaker.
He's a very good emergency point guard, and he's done an excellent job of growing into the position. That said, when fans of a team with a non-traditional PG like Parker look at him and go, "well he's not really a point guard", that should tell people something. There's nothing about George's game that suggests he's supposed to be creating shots for other people. He's a good scorer, but he's not really all that great at breaking people down off the dribble. He's also on a team where it's a waste if he penetrates and kicks the ball out because he's the only one on the team with a reliable corner three.
This. Anyone who wants Hill to defend Nash again is either blind, ignorant or not a real Spurs fan.
It's more about no one giving a about you or your thread.
The Lakers could win a championship with Jacque Vaughn at PG..
Some predictons of future chazley threads:
- Matt Bonner is actually a very good rebounder
- Blair is a finesse player and he is actually taller than people think
- Manu has no heart
- RJ is a manly stud and always fights hard
Just some friendly suggestions/predictions. Don't think they will beat the classic "Keep Roger Mason Jr" thread however.
damn, he really did that!
thought it must be something like a running gag or secrete code, but then I checked and only thought wow. no irony, no sarcasm. he really meant that.
but ok, he also wanted to trade for Jared Jeffries. at least he's pretty consistent in what he's doing.
Saying Hill is NOT a pg is like saying Tim Duncan is NOT a center... it's really doesn't matter much..
My only issue is with the people who feel secure enough in Hill right now to throw Parker off the team. Hill is a good player and Pop is obviously grooming him to run the point, but the Spurs are currently better off with TP running the show, at least for now. He is going to have to improve his court vision, ability to pass out of the paint, his quickness on d and his overall IQ before he is ready to run this team . . . and he better learn fast.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions