Reply With Quote
Several times? The Speedy legend grows.
On point....Hill's a Tweener and is best off the bench..I compare him to shannon brown of LA, shannon's not quite ready for the torch from Fisher but he still brings some things to table (athleticism, speed, energy, streaky shooting)...Parker's 3rd year he was avg 14 and 5 and the potential was VERY obvious. Hill's good but def a role player in this league.
...by the way, I would LOVE to have shannon brown rocking silver and black..always liked the guy's game
Several times? The Speedy legend grows.
Hill doesn't even play back up PG. When he comes in for Manu midway through the 1st, Parker is playing PG. When Manu goes in for Parker after he gets rest, Manu is playing point with Hill at SG. Manu essentially plays SG/PG for this team. Hill is completely out of his realm at the PG position because he doesn't play it and no one should expect him to play it well. He has as much credentials at the PG position as Neal.
Hill is a limited basektball player, people should stop expecting him to be anything more than an above average perimiter defender with good spot up shooting ability. He shines when he doesn't have to do that much offensively and can play off of others. Don't expect him to initiate an offense on a consistent basis because that's just not and will never be in his game.
Hes playing much more aggressive tonight, consistently getting to the hoop.
Yes, several times. That didnt just happen once or twice during that run.
Nice bounceback game for Hill tonight. I hope he can have more games like this and leave yesterday's game in Memphis for good (barring any playoff matchup with them, lol).
Lets see theres game 6 vs the Nets and......
Nope thats it.
Well, you're half right; it didn't happen twice.
Ya know I liked Speedy too, but acting like he was Manu Ginobili in 2005 is all we heard post 2003, and for some reason STILL to this DAY it happens...
Who's saying Speedy was anything more than an average role player?Dont assume , everyone that saw Speedy play knows that he was nothing more than that...but the fact that an average role player had to come in during several fourth qtrs because Tony wasnt running the offense efficiently was a point I made to illustrate that Tony had his struggles learning the position in his earlier yrs as well. Not to glorify Speedy.
Someone that knows were to find boxscores that break down minutes played in every quarter, let me know because it happened more than once.
Fine. Good luck with that.
Moving on to the point you were trying to support: Tony Parker was a point guard when he played professionally in France. Tony Parker was a point guard when he came to the Spurs. Tony Parker has never been anything other than a point guard. George Hill was a shooting guard when he was in high school. George Hill was a shooting guard when he was in college. George Hill has never been anything other than a shooting guard. Shooting guards do not transition into point guards in the NBA. Ever. Some guys that aren't point guards can dribble the ball up, pass it around and retain their effectiveness without racking up turnovers, and George can do that. He hasn't figured out how to do it consistently yet.
No, no he didn't....
Not every guy 1-12 needs to be a damn superstar. Some of you expect way too much out of a SIXTH MAN.
Thanks.
I'm aware of what positions both players played prior to coming into the NBA. As far players never transitioning, off the top of my head...Stephen Curry played SG in college if I remember correctly. Now obviously these players making that kind of transition won't ever be true PGs, but they can do a decent enough job running the point...although their biggest strength will always be scoring. George Hill can be one of those players.
Also I made it pretty clear that Hill doesnt have the ceiling Tony had in his earlier yrs as a PG, the fact that I compared their struggles was not to suggest that Hill will one day be as good. It was simply to show that alot of young players struggle running point, that its premature to write him off as a PG already. He can be a starting caliber PG, especially in the right situation...which this team provides for him.
I don't know that Curry's a starting caliber point guard either, but he's doing a pretty good job on a team whose two best players are shooting guards. If you're going to cite him as a success story, then Iverson and Arenas probably deserve a mention as well.
Hill can manage not to have a negative assist to turnover ratio and still do the things that makes him valuable. If that's "starting caliber" to you, then we probably agree. At some point I'm hoping the coaching staff figures out that isn't the role they should be trying to get him into.
Hill had a great game to answer his inner critic, primarily because he stopped trying to be something he's not - a pure PG. When he just plays his game and attacks the rim, picks his spots for pull-ups, and pops up in the corner occasionally, he scores much better and also finds opportunities for his teammates. And when he does that he and Manu are almost telepathic. Keep the authentic George Hill coming please George.
27 pts, 6 asst, 0 TOs
How come people arent crowning Hill for this one great game the way people were crucifying him for his one horrible one? Just wondering tbh.
You have read SpursTalk before...right?
Hill's playing exactly the way I said he should be playing in order to be effective. He needs to be aggressive and look for his own shot instead of trying to be a pass-first setup guy. Assists happen for a guy like Hill when he's scoring and drawing attention from defenders.
BTW, Hill had a number of horrid games, so let's wait until he does this a few more times before we declare him playoff-ready, okay?
He's a good 2. He's not a PG. He doesn't pass worth a damn. In fact, I don't know if he sees anyone else on the floor when he has the ball.
That makes sense (first paragraph) if Hill passes out of double coverage or a collapsing defense, but he doesn't. Why draw the defense if you have no intention of passing the ball? TP splits the defense and causes them to tighten up. Hill just blitzes down court and throws up a shot. It's not the same thing. Hill did good, but we need a real backup PG, not just a 2 who can dribble.
I'm not sure how you don't understand this, so I'll make it very simple: You can't draw the defense if they think you intend to pass the ball. You can't even draw defenders to you if you're trying to score, you have to actually be scoring by beating a single defender, and unlike Parker that's the only way Hill is going to get assists. Those assists will only come for him if he's being aggressive and scoring as teams sag or double and his teammates are freed up. Hill was a great scorer in college, and it's going to end up as his primary strength as a pro. Might as well take advantage of it.
I agree that the Spurs should have a legitimate backup point guard instead of Hill, but it doesn't change what Georgie needs to be doing to maximize his effectiveness.
If you don't intend to pass the ball when the defense sags, there's no reason to drive the lane against 3 guys. You are more often than not going to get into trouble.
There's not a team in the NBA that doesn't know the scheme you are referring to. They expect the guy to pass, so they sag instead of collapse. When he scores over and over, they begin to collapse. What happens when they collapse and the PG doesn't pass the ball? It becomes a 10' running bank shot with 4 other guys standing around watching, every trip down court. Not involved on offense means not involved on defense (often).
Hill is a really good 2 guard. He can attack the rim really well and finish almost as well as Manu, not as well as Tony but no one does. Still, with his 30 against Memphis, he had 1 assist. He had 6 last night but I believe half of those were on the break.
I think there's a difference between a shoot first PG and a shoot always PG. The Spurs have enough offensive weapons to not need a shoot first PG on the floor, except in the case where TP cannot be stopped and he's ahead of the pack. Otherwise, get others involved.
Still, he did a fantastic job last night. He will be one of the best in the league if he's not already, but I don't see him at the PG spot in the future. I see Manu and George in the same role, not Tony and George.
I watched only 1st half, but Hill looked great. I remeber him @Memphis when he was just awful. Yesterday he was the leader and had a great game. Dont know what to think of him
I don't know, but I know what happens when they collapse on Hill, because he did pass: he gets six assists and no turnovers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
