Reply With Quote
I will also say like a lot of posters here said hills d is overrated and this year it went downhill
weed might be a problem
but nice guys do not always get the le
spurs need a player with an at ude
like jr smith or sj
I will also say like a lot of posters here said hills d is overrated and this year it went downhill
sj is stephen jackson
he used to play for the spurs
tell his agent told him he want to start to be built in his contract....
I know you didn't see my edit, but I just said I think Maxwell's scoring might have given the Spurs a shot at a le in Timmy's first season.
, I think Ron Artest's game outweighs his crazy-assed behavior. All I said was that it was never going to happen with Chalmers, because the Spurs' FO doesn't roll that way. And if they had any doubts during the draft, they didn't after him and Arthur got kicked out of Boy Scout Camp.
Now I'm not a fan of J.R. Smith, because he loses control on the court. I could give you some fresh examples from this season alone. My favorite was when he was on an uncontested fast break, turned an incredible 360, brought his arms down from the rafters... and missed the dunk. It was a critical point in a game that the Nuggets had fought to come back in, and he totally killed the momentum. They had that game in the bag, if Smith just makes the 2 points. He's a great scorer, but he only thinks about J.R. Smith. We can just agree to disagree about that one. But I'd like to see Chalmers and Arthur both here right about now.
Sorry, I didn't see it. The worst thing that ever happend to SJax is the Spurs not stepping up on that contract sooner. And one of the worst things that happened to the Spurs dynasty. I think he would have taken a contract without a starter guarantee. He was hurt because the Spurs didn't step up quicker, and his agent threw gas on the fire.
yeah I'd take Jackson back. He wouldn't have gotten into the same kind of trouble if he'd stayed here. He might not have been a choirboy, but I don't think he would have gotten any major suspensions or like that.
I think pop would ran jr in
jr would respect pop he has les
what has the overrated karl every done?
let melo not play d
wow
He's playing within their system next to the two best players in the league and their butler, of course he's going to look good, all he's doing is shooting wide open 3s and playing defense. Hill is a better defender than Chalmers even though last season he seemed to have slipped on the defensive end, I really hope he concentrates on that because George has the tools to be a great defender especially with his massive arms. Chalmers on the other hand can't beat out Mike Bibby, possibly the worst starting PG in the NBA, for the starting spot. That's really all that needs to be said.
Besides Hill has done a lot more in his career than Chalmers so far. Hill is one of the main reasons we beat Dallas in 2010 and I seriously doubt Chalmers will ever be the reason a team beats another.
chambers right now is better then hill
hill might have been better before
but not now
spurs need an upgrade
someone has to go
sorry spur fans
One more thing... you're also right about that part. A lot of people underestimate how important Mario Elie was to that '99 championship. He wasn't getting into trouble off the court, but he was definitely not a nice guy. That bulldog, I've-got-your-back toughness changed the personality of the team. I was at that WC Semifinal game when Elie made the kiss of death shot. Blowing a kiss at the Suns bench was just an asshole thing to do. But Elie was pretty damned good about walking the walk, and nobody ever pushed around a team that he was on.
And you're right, we need some of that here.
Maybe Pop could keep him in line. I think it's in his DNA, but maybe that's too hard. Karl is another coach who's good at winning regular season games, and he does like to let guys do their thing. If I thought the guy could be a team player... I'd be ing because the Spurs won't sign him. I'm just not a believer. I've watched the guy pretty close. I think he wants to be top dawg so badly he can taste it.
You are R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D. I know it's your shtick and all but for 's sake c'mon son
spurs can not stand pat
splitter will be better duncan and manu will be worse at the begging of the season or play limited minutes
spurs need a new hungry player that has not won a le
Red letter night - I agree with almost everything. If you look at this roster, and these salaries, and the compe ion, the Spurs have to bring in an upgrade (or two) to contend. And that means someone has to go. Otherwise, we're looking at more early playoff exits. I don't know if the upgrade(s) could really be pulled off, with the cap situation. But that's what needs to happen. It's a business, not a marriage.
I will say that Hill was a of a lot better as a starter than Chalmers ever was as a starter. I watched Chalmers pretty closely for a while, and there's no doubt about that. And Hill is without a doubt smarter than Chalmers. If Chalmers had to try and play within the Spurs' (complicated) defensive system, he'd be totally out of his depth. No player has ever benefitted the Spurs from inside Pop's doghouse.
... and this is your Ducks on truth serum.
I'll argue it. He's a 40% shooter, 35% 3 PT shooter, 2.5 APG/1.5 TO over the course of a season. He was so good during the season that he sat behind Arroyo and the ghost of Mike Bibby (who can't guard anyone). That's essentially what you get from Hill at PG (although Hill's added ability to attack the rim makes him a much better scoring option overall). It's a silly thing to argue because NEITHER is much of a PG, both are much better suited off the ball. [ , even Chalmers college coach tried to make him a PG for 3 years before ditching the experiment altogether.]
Chalmers game is actually really really similar to Hill's (except that Hill can create his own shot). The big difference is that, for the majority of their careers thus far, Hill has been a much superior player.
FWIW, Chalmers' history of hitting clutch shots basically spans the NCAA championship game, took a 3 year hiatus, then returned for June 2011. Now, there's no arguing against his performance in this series, he's been great on the biggest stage possible - but it's clearly leading to some people who never watch him otherwise severely over-rating his overall ability.
I know that GHill's last 2 playoff series have left a bitter taste in everyone's mouth - but do people forget that he put the Spurs on his back against Dallas last year and was the best player in that series? Chalmers is not remotely capable of doing that.
I know you're not just trolling for an argument, so I'll try to make a serious response. First of all, when I think of PG performance, I'm sort of hung up on them delivering some assists, and keeping the offense moving. I say Chalmers is better at that. Second, you know better than to just look at flat numbers like that.
Hill just doesn't dish out a lot of assists, even during the times when he legitimately gets the chance to run the offense. The numbers confirm that, as does the fact that the Spurs' offense often bogs down badly with him at the point. I'm not basing that on any one series, or just a few games. And I'm not a Hill basher because of it. I'm just trying to be honest about what I see. And I think that even the Spurs staff recognizes it. Chalmers is better (not great) about dishing the ball, and he does keep their offense moving better than Hill does. I'm still hopeful Hill will get better at that part.
It's also a little bit misleading to look at just shooting percentage, since Hill takes a much bigger percentage of his shots at or near the rim. When you look at something like Effective FG%, the two are pretty evenly matched. But a PG that is constantly drawing the defense to the paint, like Hill does when he drives, needs to be better at kicking the ball out to (the correct) teammates than Hill is. He's still too one-dimensional, and that's one of the reasons the offense bogs. Again, I'm still hopeful that he will keep improving that part of his game.
Remember, my comment was just about Chalmers being better at the point - nothing else. You probably should have thrown in the Assist numbers. Chalmers' are a lot better. But I also said that Hill was a lot better as a starter, and he was. The big problem comparing the two is that their roles have changed, and sometimes when Hill is on the stat sheet as the PG, Manu is still running the offense. It's a lot of apples and oranges. I thought it was pretty widely accepted that at (just) running the point, Chalmers has the edge. You disagree, and it's hard to prove one way or the other for the reasons above. I don't think that many people would agree with you, though, that Hill is better at keeping an offense moving, which is what a PG is supposed to do.
BTW - I'm not bitter about Hill's playoff performances. He's a young guy, and he's pretty solid, and he's improving. I think that on a lot of other teams he would have more freedom, and he could make those numbers look a lot better, but I'm not sure it would have made him a better player. (It didn't help Chalmers getting dumped into the starting PG spot as a rookie.) He's not someone I would be happy to see the Spurs lose.
George's problem is he is a mental midget. When he makes mistakes he gets way too passive and unaggressive and takes himself completely out of the game. He relies on rhythm more than any player on this team (except Bonner), moreso than Ginobili because he can impact the game in many other ways if his shot is off. If George is being passive and not getting to the rim he's probably not doing anything else either.
One last (I hope) thing about whether Hill or Chalmers is the better overall player. This year, about one third of Hills shots were 3-pointers. About 60% of Chalmers' attempts were from beyond the arc. I'm not crazy about PG's that dish and slip out to the line for 3PA's. Once in a while, maybe. But Chalmers does it a lot when he's at the point. Even in his rookie season, when he was a full-time PG, about half of his shots were 3's.
Some of you know that one of my pet stats is FTA's (or FTA's /36 minutes). I think that guys who can get to the FT line win games. And that ability is priceless in crunch time, when their team is behind and they need to get some points and stop the clock. Chalmers' FTA/36 for his first three seasons were: 2.2, 2.6, and 1.4. Hill's FTA/36, for his first three seasons were: 4.1, 3.7, and 4.5. Yes, Hill gets to the line more because he drives more. But he drives more because he's good at it, and Chalmers isn't. No matter what it seems like, FTA's don't lie. When a player draws that many fouls, he's imposing his will on defenders, and forcing them to foul him. If Chalmers could do it, he would.
If everything else is roughly equal, give me the guy who can get to the FT line every time.
was he a mental midget when he was tearing Dallas (a team that had our number in recent seasons) a new one last year?
still inconsistent would be a better descriptive term for him.
Good argument. I do think Hill's assists/36 would be pretty much in line with Chalmers if he played strictly the PG instead spending long stretches on the wing - but that's tough to prove.
+1
I agree here. Hill's ability to get to the line and generate points is an underrated ability that not many players possess in the league. The problem with him (as K-state alluded to) is the passive lapses he falls into where not only his offense dissappears but his defense becomes terrible, and he misses clutch 3's that he normally knocks down. But I attribute at least half of this to not being comfortable with his role on the team. He's been shuffled around constantly from starter to bench player due to Parker's frequent nagging injuries and Pop's tinkering with the lineups. Plus he just completed his 3rd year in the league and is probably pining to prove himself in more than just a bench role. Guess we'll see what shakes out this off season (with Parker) which will determine what his role will be next year.
I seem to recall some pretty good games (assist-wise) in the past few years when Parker was out for stretches.
And if he learns how to run a pick and roll properly that number will defenitely go up.
hill had plenty of chances to run the pick and roll
he does not get it
he is not a backup point guard SORRY
Well,
Hindsight is 20/20
Chalmers looked like @#$% and Hill netted Kawhi (possibly Bertans)
lol Chalmers definitely dodged all the media's bullets after D-Wade played like .
He ought to thank Wade for drawing all the media attention to Wade
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
