Game Thoughts: Spurs @ Celtics - Feb. 8

[Obstructed_View]

Why was it bad shot selection? It was an open look for a guy who has shown the ability to make those kinds of shots this year. If the Spurs had called timeout before that shot and Pop had drawn up a play, that's the kind of shot that he would have been happy to have ended up with.

I agree. Having re-watched the end of that game, there was a three or four second difference in the game and shot clock. If the Celtics get their defense set, there's not really a better shot you're going to get than that. Mason hits a shot or two like that every single game.

If you run the clock down and miss, then you're pretty much hoping on a desperation three to tie after the free throws.

[timvp]

you're overreacting to a good run of only few minutes from Hill.

Those comments had nothing to do with his game against the Celtics.

(remember his awful D against CP3 in the 4th).

Most of Hill's problem against CP3 was due to the gameplan. Pop's gameplan was to go under the screens and let CP3 shoot. In that game, CP3 drained five threes ... which is high for him.

Even as CP3 was scoring continuously against Hill, Pop was fine with it because making him shoot the ball was the gameplan.

to say that the clutch player against LA has to be him is just insane. even it's about the clutch role player.

It's not insane if you watched the 2003 series and how the Spurs beat the Lakers. Manu using his athleticism to break down the Lakers' defense was a huge part of why the Spurs won.

Hill's athleticism now is comparable to Manu's athleticism as a rookie. Of the role players, Hill is the only one who can change games with his athleticism. No one is saying Hill is going to have a bigger role than the Big Three but Spurs fans know all too well how spot-up shooters and Phil Jackson aren't a good combination.

And really, your constant anti-Hill sentiment is starting to come across like the CoM's anti-Parker sentiment.

[timvp]

Why was it bad shot selection? It was an open look for a guy who has shown the ability to make those kinds of shots this year.

If RMJ misses that shot, Spurs fans are roasting him and labeling him the goat. That shot going in erased all of his negatives, even the awkwardness of the shot itself.

If Duncan gets away with "his fair share" of moving screens then there ain't much to go around outside of Boston. As mentioned, Duncan gets called for good screens about as often as he gets away with a bad one.

The only type of illegal pick Duncan usually gets away with is when he pivots with the ball to pick off a defender. That is technically illegal but Duncan doesn't get called for it very often.

But yeah, I gave up on the Spurs opponents getting called for illegal screens when Eric Dampier spent the entire 2006 series moving, grabbing and holding on ever freakin' screen in that series.

Not that I'm bitter . . .

[polandprzem]

Few things

#-1 Good that I was able to watch that game
#0 The quality was not high but the second half was all good (the 1st. one was more like picture viewing with commentary)

#1 - The most important thing in this agem and esp. this season is that the spurs stays sharp. They have no break downs (there were few this season like Phily game but that's nothing cosidering this is NBA 82 games in 85 nights). Well all in all they are not letting team get on them and they have no excuses at all. LAst year it was Manu who had to take a heavy lifting all year long along with other two guys from the spurs well known trio. This year Spurs are looking really fresh. As much as they can. And also they have more optons then they had last year. They are more versitile. Still they are not where LA or Cleveland or Boston are. But they are going constantly in the right direction. Like I was hoping the spurs can flip the switch last year. This year it looks like they are flipping it very slowly, just to hear it click on April, May and June.
Also - after such long break they were not rusty - how can they? As pro's they must be well rested and that's it. I always was pissed about that rust excuse. And again the noon game and we walked away with the win.

#2 Bonner did just fine, but he is unsure element of the spurs S5

#3 Hill - dayum every time this kid goes inside I see him as a rider without a head. He throws his body without control out there and everytime he hits the floor I'm hoping his knees or ankles are all right. Frankly - he is jumping on a bungee without a bungee (rope)

#4 Manu is getting better. Good. Hopefully he can extend his getting back into shape process till April. Then I would love to see him full force for the playoffs.

#5 Maybe I'm find some time (motivation)to discuss about this game later.

[kace]

Those comments had nothing to do with his game against the Celtics.

Most of Hill's problem against CP3 was due to the gameplan. Pop's gameplan was to go under the screens and let CP3 shoot. In that game, CP3 drained five threes ... which is high for him.

Even as CP3 was scoring continuously against Hill, Pop was fine with it because making him shoot the ball was the gameplan.

It's not insane if you watched the 2003 series and how the Spurs beat the Lakers. Manu using his athleticism to break down the Lakers' defense was a huge part of why the Spurs won.

Hill's athleticism now is comparable to Manu's athleticism as a rookie. Of the role players, Hill is the only one who can change games with his athleticism. No one is saying Hill is going to have a bigger role than the Big Three but Spurs fans know all too well how spot-up shooters and Phil Jackson aren't a good combination.

And really, your constant anti-Hill sentiment is starting to come across like the CoM's anti-Parker sentiment.

you make a lot of comments and thoughts on this board and most of them are very interesting and very true.

please accept we can disagree with some of them without being labeled in the "Church of ..." or the "....-hater".

i've always said and found Hill a great young backup PG and a great prospect.
but i still think expecting him to be a difference maker, especially in a PO serie against LA, this year is too soon and not reasonable. i'll be the first pleased if the kid proves me wrong but till then i'll stay with my opinion.

and manu was yet a proven winner when he joined the spurs. Hill is not.

Few things

#3 Hill - dayum every time this kid goes inside I see him as a rider without a head. He throws his body without control out there and everytime he hits the floor I'm hoping his knees or ankles are all right. Frankly - he is jumping on a bungee without a bungee (rope)

arent' you afraid of being labeled a Hill hater with those kind of comments ??

[EricB]

God Kace, don't get all butt hurt....

[kace]

God Kace, don't get all butt hurt....

no problem, it's really not a big deal. my poor english doesn't allow me a lot of nuance so it could appear more straightforward that i meant.

i still don't see what could make me a Hill hater just because i think he won't be our savior against LA.

[timvp]

please accept we can disagree with some of them without being labeled in the "Church of ..." or the "....-hater".

I didn't label you either one of those. But I have noticed an anti-Hill sentiment lately whenever he's been mentioned. Perhaps I'm wrong . . .

i've always said and found Hill a great young backup PG and a great prospect.
but i still think expecting him to be a difference maker, especially in a PO serie against LA, this year is too soon and not reasonable. i'll be the first pleased if the kid proves me wrong but till then i'll stay with my opinion.

Again, it's not a matter of how good Hill is. It's more of a matter of what Phil Jackson can shut down. If he wants to, he can take RMJ and Bonner out of a series. He could take Finley out of a series. But taking Hill out of a series wouldn't be as simple as making a specific defensive game plan.

and manu was yet a proven winner when he joined the spurs. Hill is not.

Manu isn't the only role player to ever have success against Phil Jackson. Last year in the finals, Leon Powe's athleticism and youthful exuberance accounted for a good amount of the Celtics' success. Comparing Hill and Powe isn't a huge stretch.

Even Leandro Barbosa destroyed Jackson's defense and Barbosa is about the opposite of a proven winner.

arent' you afraid of being labeled a Hill hater with those kind of comments ??

I don't think I've labeled anyone a Hill hater.

[EricB]

I think Hill hasn't been here long enough to have a church or haters

[kace]

Manu isn't the only role player to ever have success against Phil Jackson. Last year in the finals, Leon Powe's athleticism and youthful exuberance accounted for a good amount of the Celtics' success. Comparing Hill and Powe isn't a huge stretch.

You can compare Powe and Hill.
but Leon Powe had ONE good game and was a total non-factor in the five others against LA.

Even Leandro Barbosa destroyed Jackson's defense and Barbosa is about the opposite of a proven winner.

Barbosa can finish at the rim. Hill is very erratic in this aspect of his game.

[EricB]

You can compare Powe and Hill.
but Leon Powe had ONE good game and was a total non-factor in the five others against LA.



Barbosa can finish at the rim. Hill is very erratic in this aspect of his game.

Your misunderstanding.

Barbosa is a quick, athletic guard who disrupts things with his quickness, and Jackson has a hardtime gameplanning for that.

Thats what he means I believe.