Gary Neal Vs George Hill: The Rookie Edition

[Josepatches_]

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.

I want to see him when it counts.


Neal is a good shooter but he's not much more. Anyway we need that kind of player too.

For example in the spanish league Neal was a role player too (when Splitter was one of the best players here).
There are a lot of Gary Neals playing in Europe.Playing the same role he has in the NBA.Neal was one of them.

Instead of him George Hill would be a big star in Europe.

[Sotongball21]

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..

this

[sa_butta]

I like Neal in a shooting guard roll rather than running the PG, I think Parker and Hill are much better handling and distributing...No need to change anything now...

[Cane]

Hill's got a much better NBA body (especially for defense and athletic finishes whereas Neal seems like a below the rim player and doesn't have a crazy wingspan to bother taller players) but Neal still seems to be a significantly better rookie imo. And even though its been mentioned a bunch, Neal's also not a typical rookie either given his experience overseas.

Neal's got a far superior shooting touch and has already shown various abilities including hitting timely 3's from deep downtown, clutch free throws, variety of midrange shots, and floaters around the rim. The rookie Neal seems to also have better decision making, passing, and court vision as well. However it doesn't seem likely that Neal will have any significant time as a combo guard and instead will focus on shooting which is expected considering the team already had its PG's and needed shooters. It also seems like Neal doesn't need the ball anywhere near as much as Hill to be effective which imo makes him also much more versatile offensively.

[hater]

both serve different purpose. Kinda like Parker + Manu.

Hill is a ballhandler and long defender and more athletic and fast

neal is a straight up clutch shooter with Barryesque potential

[jjktkk]

Since the reason the OP started this thread was to stir the pot, we might as well add some peppers to it. Lets say Anderson returns back from injury to his early season form and all of a sudden minutes are hard to find for Neal. Would the Spurs be inclined to trade Neal, Hill?

[Hook Dem]

Since we have a very good bench, what would be the purpose in trading anyone? Some people are never satisfied!!!!!

[8FOR!3]

Since the reason the OP started this thread was to stir the pot, we might as well add some peppers to it. Lets say Anderson returns back from injury to his early season form and all of a sudden minutes are hard to find for Neal. Would the Spurs be inclined to trade Neal, Hill?

They won't be hard to find. The Ime Udoka minutes will be earned by Anderson.

[jjktkk]

Since we have a very good bench, what would be the purpose in trading anyone? Some people are never satisfied!!!!!

On the contrary, I love this Spurs team as it is, just spectulating. I'm satisified!

[Cant_Be_Faded]

rofl some of you people are funny.

[BanditHiro]

does anyone else find it really awkward to watch videos with Brent Barry?

[Darkwaters]

I want to see him when it counts.


Neal is a good shooter but he's not much more. Anyway we need that kind of player too.

For example in the spanish league Neal was a role player too (when Splitter was one of the best players here).
There are a lot of Gary Neals playing in Europe.Playing the same role he has in the NBA.Neal was one of them.

Instead of him George Hill would be a big star in Europe.

Neal was pretty damn important to Treviso though. He was basically the heart and soul of that club.

Incidentally, Pallacenestro Treviso has had a lot of players (and coaches) of significance.

Gary Neal
Andrea Bargnani
Pops Mensah-Bonsu
Vinny Del Negro
Tony Kukoc
Jorge Garbajosa
Bostjan Nachbar
Charlie Bell
Trajan Langdon
Mike D'Antoni (Coach)

Craziness.

[Darkwaters]

What Hill brings to the table and what Neal bring are completely different.

Neal is a coldblooded shooter that has pretty good handles, nice passing skills, deceptive mid-range game and endless energy. Not the most athletic, nor the longest or tallest, but a major spark plug kind of player that can bring instant offense when hot. Always gives 100% effort and has the necessary amnesia to just shoot through slumps. Not just a spot up shooter, hes very adept at moving without the ball and firing on the run. Hes everything we wished Jack McClinton had been.

Hill is a quick combo guard with great slashing ability and a complete offensive game. Not as effective from range, but able to do everything offensively when hes playing with confidence. Not as good at creating for others (well, he creates the opportunities with ease, but doesn't have the vision or ability to make the pass always) but considerably more adept at creating shots for himself. Dramatically better defender with great length and athleticism. A terror on both ends of the floor.

Both players are awesome to have on this squad. But Hill is more a foundational piece while Neal is a complimentary player. Whats scary is Hill is more of a 2 guard than a 1 mostly because of his lack of court vision. Neal is also more of a 2. James Anderson is also more of a 2 than a 3 (not that it matters much in the Spurs system). So between Ginobili/Hill/Neal/Anderson the Spurs are stacked with legit 2 guards.

[mingus]

Gary Neal's productivity is based off of what our main guys are doing. he's not someone who is going to "go off" if the other guys aren't driving and kicking and creating for him. Hill's offensive game is sort of like that, but last year and this year he's obiously shown that he can initiate a lot of offense for himself on pick 'n rolls and one on one opportunities. Both of them play defense pretty well, but they play it different. Hill uses his length and Neal uses his wide frame. Hill still hasn't reached his potential on the defensive end. offensively, this is probably where he'll be at for his career. if he can reach his defensive potential he can become a great sixth man in this league.

[ohmwrecker]

Since the reason the OP started this thread was to stir the pot, we might as well add some peppers to it. Lets say Anderson returns back from injury to his early season form and all of a sudden minutes are hard to find for Neal. Would the Spurs be inclined to trade Neal, Hill?

No. Anderson/Hill/Neal is a pretty strong 2nd unit. We saw a lot of it before Anderson's injury.

[Darkwaters]

No. Anderson/Hill/Neal is a pretty strong 2nd unit. We saw a lot of it before Anderson's injury.

Yep. And any minutes that Ime Udoka is soaking up will just go away instantly.

[Hooks]

Since the reason the OP started this thread was to stir the pot, we might as well add some peppers to it. Lets say Anderson returns back from injury to his early season form and all of a sudden minutes are hard to find for Neal. Would the Spurs be inclined to trade Neal, Hill?

Anderson switched to SF.

C-Splitter
PF-Dice, Bonner
SF-Anderson (Udoka will be released)
SG-Neal
PG-Hill

Anderson is also an underrated passer which is something that 2nd unit needs.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I am not convinced. I think some of you need to go further in depth. Still on the fence with this one.

[wunderkindepiphany]

If I had to have one player, I would go with George Hill, for a number of reasons. Luckily, the Spurs have both, and that means that other teams have to account for both of them, defensively. Gary Neal was brought in to fill a role, and I believe that the coaches were very clear-cut with him (Gary) about what that entailed. First and foremost, Gary was asked to bring defensive intensity at his position, this is something that he has worked at, from the pre-season on, and it shows. He has begun to lessen his lapse in spacing coming off of screens (his main improvement has been coming over screens) and he has shown hustle on that end of the ball, pretty much every game that I have watched. Gary has meant much more to other teams than he currently does to the Spurs team that he is playing on. Because of his ability to handle the ball, his speed and strength, his confidence, and his vision, he has played the #1 option on previous clubs. This experience is something Neal carries over Hill, IMO. This is not to say that Hill hasn't been relied on, just that Neal has a longer resume and has done it more often. Although Hill has done a of a job filling in and carrying the team through pressure situations, (Playoffs) Neal simply looks like he's seen more games. Neal shoots lights out and, like Ginobili, doesn't shy away from the pressure of shooting a game-winner. Certain players are just wired this way; everybody knows a player like this, even if you go to play pick-up games, it is easy to see which players are going to try and win the game THEMSELVES and which ones are going to try to play WITHIN THEMSELVES. Neal flashes this confidence sometimes. I think, because of the off-court experiences that Neal has had, because of his scrappy climb to the NBA, because of his experience on several ball-clubs as a #1 option, he plays with that chip on his shoulder. He is a more vocal player than Hill and a great addition for the Spurs.

I prefaced by saying I would go with Hill, given a choice, though, and here is why.

Others have alluded to the fact that Hill has more of an "up-side". I agree. Hill has an outrageous body-fat percentage; I think its like 5%. This is a testament to the fact that he is a gym-rat and treats his body very well. Speaking of his body, he is 6'6 with a wingspan of over seven feet. This length, along with the fact that he has a strong core, allows him to guard players that are bigger than him and even give them fits. He may not always come out on top of a battle with a PF in the low post, but if he gets mismatched, he has the length to play that, straight up. George Hill is a student of the game, anyone who follows the Spurs knows this. Anytime Hill makes an errant pass or an obvious mistake, no-one takes it harder than him. This at ude endears him to his teammates and his coaches, and has earned him minutes and larger responsibilities, over the course of his stay with the Spurs. George Hill has worked, tirelessly, to secure the "corner three" as part of his arsenal. If you follow his progress, George has made countless additions to his bag of tricks. The floater, corner three, and his ability to run the point are all things that were not part of his arsenal, prior to his start with the Spurs. Understandably so because, due to his frame, he was likely not used in this capacity on prior clubs. But, coach saw what everybody else sees in him, his work ethic and durability, and made an adjustment to give him a leadership role on this team. Leadership requires a player to use his voice, literally, and this is something that Hill has been getting better at, little by little; he (Hill) has even alluded to this, several times, in interviews, that the "coach wants me to be more vocal". This is where his upside really becomes evident. George Hill has the mentality to be a real leader on a team, a solid defensive base, several facets of an offensive game, and STILL CAN GROW TO BE BETTER. The sky is the limit with him, I think sometimes he just thinks too much; his brain gets in the way of him playing basketball. Time and experience will help this.


thats my two cents.

[ShoogarBear]

Hes everything we wished Jack McClinton had been.

Nice.

[ShoogarBear]

I am not convinced. I think some of you need to go further in depth. Still on the fence with this one.

Glenn Robinson or Kevin Durant?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

George Hill 2008-09

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

Gary Neal 2010-2011 thus far

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?

CBF you ing BOZO. This discussion ain't even discussable anymore. Stats have become so stacked in Neal's favor you should have waited a couple more months to make such a ridiculous thread.

This ain't even post-worthy anymore!

[G-Dawgg]

Neal is the better shooter, but Hill is a more complete player. Hill plays WAY better defense, and does a very good job on offense also, which makes him much more valuable as a player than Neal.

[Spurs da champs]

TBH George is a undersized 2 guard who does nothing but ball hog and has shown how clueless he is when he tries to run the point, I swear he's so damn overrated.
Gary Neal>George Hill

[m33p0]

you also have to take into account the faster pace the team is playing at.