Only for the Spurs, who desperately need a long three and have one of the best point guards in the league ahead of him. In general, a good point guard's more valuable.
What team is likley to thrive more? A very good team with a great PG and so, so SF or a very good team with a so, so PG and a great SF?
How many SFs dominate games consistently and are the teams go to player? How many PGs dominate games conisistently? PG is a greater impact player to a team when he is really good.
That still doesn't mean the position is not an integral one. The league's better athletes play that position. That's why having Bowen as a stopper has been so crucial to their success. THe Spurs have had 5 years to fill this position with a young, talented backup player and they've not accomplished anytbing.
Don't look now but Batum has had a string of mediocre games, while the Spurs would be relying on Vaughn for 40 minutes without Hill.
Point taken.
If the Spurs had taken Batum, assuming he were he available at their pick, they will have most certainly taken a PG in the 2nd round. I had them taking Dragic at the same pick in the 2nd round - which they did, yet traded him to Phx.
Of course, even he is still getting acclimated to the NBA, and from what I can tell, is light years behind Hill. So your point about the Spurs having to rely on JV is still valid.
To bad the Spurs couldn't have come out of the draft with both Batum and Hill. They would've been set at both positions for the next couple of seasons. I know it's a pipe dream because Hill wouldn't have lasted until the 2nd round. I just wanted to live the moment for a bit.
Since Hill was rumored to have been scouted by Boston and LA, how glad is everyone that he didn't end up with one of them? A PG rotation of Hill and Rondo would have been a defensive nightmare.
A G rotation of Manu, Mason, TP, and Hill will be feared throughout the league.
Very glad indeed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote