Reply With Quote
If Chalmers was so great, how come sooooo many teams passed on him?
exactly...........
chalmers is going to get lit up in the NBA.
If Chalmers was so great, how come sooooo many teams passed on him?
They already drafted Tim Duncan a decade ago.
The pacers would have drafted Hill in a SECOND at 41.. There was NO way to get hill at 45
Because he was a great College basketball player doesn't translate into great NBA player.. Hill is a slasher/ great defender... hes much more NBA ready.
According to draftexpress.com., Hill's 3/4 court sprint time is the same as DJ Augustine & Jarryd Bayless, and is slightly faster than Russell Westbrook and OJ Mayo. He didn't score as well in the agility test. But to call him slow is just not accurate.
Geez you must be young, that "security guard" you're referring too is Chuck "the rifleman" Person, who was a great 3-point shooter, and who played for the Spurs back in the 90's.
Since you had to lie in your first example in order to make your point, I just stopped reading right there. He's very fast, and he's a point guard and therefore not undersized, particularly considering his wingspan.
FAIL.
A 6'2 combo guard who has a 6'9 wingspan that can dunk, shoot from outside and play D, who was recruited by Florida but wanted to stay close to home with his ailing grandpa, who balled all out in Orlando, who the Spurs targeted. Oh noes! The Spurs are doomed.
Not doomed (and, again, I certainly hope a SG in this league can dunk - not sure why that's a big deal), but the case can be made that a lot of players at multiple positions were left behind that are better than Hill.
And when any or all of them are better pros than Hill then we can bad mouth the pick. I certainly will.
Dunking isn't a big deal. So I'm not sure why it's the only thing you are picking out of my posts.Spurs fans have been crying for someone athletic enough to take it to the rack. That's why I have mentioned dunking in a long list of other attributes. And he won't be a SG in this league. He'll be a backup point guard.
Maybe the Spurs are sick of not having a back up point for years, so that position was a priority for them. Maybe they know there aren't a lot of point guards they want in free agency, but there might be a lot of wings that they want.
again, but at best, maybe just maybe, he is the.........OneSo at worst the Spurs may have selected the wrong rookie backup point guard.
Without a doubt, this has been a priority for them since Speedy Claxton left 5 years ago.Dunking isn't a big deal. So I'm not sure why it's the only thing you are picking out of my posts.
Maybe the Spurs are sick of not having a back up point for years, so that position was a priority for them. Maybe they know there aren't a lot of point guards they want in free agency, but there might be a lot of wings that they want.
Priority or not, the only likely factor they got from the draft was a dedicated bench player.
the critics, do your thing Spurs.
excerpt from nbadraft.net
Weaknesses: He currently plays more of the SG position, however with his height he is projected as a PG or at least a combo guard at the next level ... He is turnover prone with 2.9 TOs per and can get out of control with his dribble when he is pressured ... While he is a decent athlete, he is nothing spectacular and lacks a first step that may give him trouble playing the lead guard ... His size and quickness are also an issue because he will have a hard time defending either guard position because of these shortcomings ... The fact that IUPUI plays in a small conference may hurt his stock, although he has played fairly well against the better teams on the schedule ...
nough said.
Might want to check the facts before your next uninformed rant. That "slow" guard that we drafted in round one clocked an official 3.07 in the 3/4 court sprint. Only four other players who were drafted last night clocked a better time than that - Derrick Rose, Jerryd Bayless, Joe Alexander and Sonny Weems.
That "slug tweener" is a true shooting guard who happend to play some SF for Oregon out of need, and who himself clocked a 3.08 sprint, third-best among all drafted players who measured in at 6-3 or taller. He also registered a 38-inch max vertical, 9th-best among all drafted players.
And that "post player who can be pushed around" was drafted as a SF prospect whom R.C. Buford himself said would be playing more "away from the basket."
So what was that you were saying again?
He is turnover prone with 2.9 TOs per and is out of control with his dribble when he is pressured by small college level players. So he can run. Maybe the Cowboys can use him at corner-back. This reminds me so much of Hughes. He could score on the little league too but was just a big bricklayer who couldn't dribble.
I know much of you worship at Pop's feet. They get the credit for Manu and Parker. I get that. If you want to give them credit for Duncan (nobrainer), I'll even give you that. Name one player other than those three that the Spurs have drafted that did anything for the Spurs.
Who are some of the guys we had in camp and let walk? Raja Bell, Mikki Moore, Adonis Haslem. Also, Pop did not want Parker. He was pushed into drafting him. If for no other reason than Pop likes Boy George then that should be enough to tell you he hasn't a chance.
Just cause you got lucky doesn't make you smart.
The TO's are a little high, but not as high in context. TD turns the ball over a lot in total, but compared with all the touches he gets it's not so bad. Same thing with Hill at IUPUI - he was their go-to guy , so he handled it a lot. Most guys who see the ball a lot, especially PGs, turn it over more than those who don't see it as much.He is turnover prone with 2.9 TOs per and is out of control with his dribble when he is pressured by small college level players. So he can run. Maybe the Cowboys can use him at corner-back. This reminds me so much of Hughes. He could score on the little league too but was just a big bricklayer who couldn't dribble.
I will once you've provided me with a list of teams who draft indisputably better than the Spurs do. (BTW, your question is framed in an...interesting way)I know much of you worship at Pop's feet. They get the credit for Manu and Parker. I get that. If you want to give them credit for Duncan (nobrainer), I'll even give you that. Name one player other than those three that the Spurs have drafted that did anything for the Spurs.
You're going to have to do better than three guys who took a long time to figure it out.Who are some of the guys we had in camp and let walk? Raja Bell, Mikki Moore, Adonis Haslem.
Anyway, nice fail.
beno udrih = 2 rings...nuff said
Of the 4 PG's selected ahead of Hill (all in the lottery), Rose averaged 2.7 TOs, Westbrook 2.5, Augustin 2.8 and Bayless 3.0. And Hill averaged more MPG than all but Augustin, just as his TO average per 40 minutes was fewer than all but Augustine (by a fraction). And he is not an "out of control" dribbler when pressured, despite what you think you know from having read something on NBADraft.net. Have you ever actually seen Hill play? I also like how you conveniently dismissed the speed factor after you got outed for incorrectly calling him "slow." Funny how speed was important to you when you thought he was slow, but its irrelevant now that you've been educated to the fact that Hill was one of the fastest players in the entire draft.
You're done, dbestpro.
Fact is he is a gamble. He could pay off big or be a bust. No one knows because he hasn't been tested night in and night out against high level compe ion.
Chalmers will be in the league over a decade and have a solid career. He won't be an all star but the Spurs didn't need one, they just needed a solid backup guard and instead they tried to hit a homerun.
Let's wait to summer league to make our judgements about him.
You tell us to wait to make judgements on Hill, yet you've already declared Chalmers a solid 10-year man even though he's even less of a true PG than Hill. I guess the rules don't apply if you went to a school like Kansas. The "tested night in and night out against high level compe ion" theory is irrelevant, esp. after about the halfway point of your rookie season. There have been countless draftees from places like Duke, UNC, Kansas, etc. who were stars in college yet never scored a single point in the NBA. Just as there are numerours players who never even went to college and are now All-Stars in the league. If major college experience was the litmus test for NBA greatness, then Steve Nash would be out of the league by now and Chris Carrawell would be our backup SF instead of Ime Udoka. You say Hill is a gamble, well guess what, at the end of the first round they're ALL gambles. I have no problem placing our bet on a player with GH's terrific skills. To about the savvyness of a selection who is specifically intended to be a backup is patently absurd.
Last edited by Steve-O-Matic; 06-28-2008 at 03:37 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
