Reply With Quote
RMJ is obviously #1
Yes
No
If not, who?
RMJ is obviously #1
The thing is, Patty isn't the back-up PG, he's the back-up SG. Manu is the back-up PG, and obviously the best in the Parker era.
Patty Mills is the best backup PG caliber player in the Parker era, but George Hill was technically Parker's backup at one time, and he's starting caliber.
Patty is starting caliber too, he's just on the same team as Tony Parker.
Patty>Hill imho.
1-on-1 wise, Hill > Patty
But Patty is more valuable to the Spurs due to his ability to get hot and knock down consecutive 3s.
Patty is quicker, a better shooter, and a very underrated defender. Not sure who'd win 1v1. Though to talk about it is moot.
Mills isn't a traditional point guard but in this system (and with the second rotation) it doesn't really matter. If he's on, it's poison for the other team.
George Hill by a small margin in terms of back up. But Patty is a far greater game changer of the bench.
patty BY FAR best backup PG... hill was nowhere near as dynamic.. in fact theres NOTHING george hill does better than patty
Short memory for some Spurs fans. George Hill was a more dynamic two-way player than Patty. His length, athleticism and defensive abilities were unmatched on that Spurs squad. He shot a very solid % from the field and could put pressure on the D by driving to the rim. His biggest issue was being consistently aggressive, which is where Patty has the advantage. But George was a better all-around player and meant more to the team success than Patty. He just had less around him.
Best backup to Parker was, is and will always be Manu Ginobili.
Patty Mills hardly called or ran plays as a PG. He was an off-the-bench shooting option and has been fantastic at it.
Nice job on underrating Patty on D while overrating GHill as per par here on the board. I was one of the biggest Ghill fanboys when he was here but he's not on Patty's caliber. Remember when we were so frustrated because George's balls would shrivel on the road? Patty Mills in games 3 and 4 sure didn't.
george hill cares more about his pretty face and image... patty HAS BALLS OF STEEL and is 10x the shooter hill was... hill got no handles and a BROKE J
I was getting to like the guy we had briefly years ago... forgot who it was... a veteran... had to retire because he had back trouble
No love for Speedy Claxton??? He bailed out Parker in the 2003 Finals. Probably had the best point guard skills of any backup we've had. Truth be known, he had far better passing skills than Parker ever had.
Hill's biggest issue is that he was one of the worst guards in the league defending the pick and roll and fighting over screens. His defense was so ridiculously overrated here. He could lock down isoball players like Kobe, but the Spurs might as well have had Shaq as soon as someone set a screen. Watching him get absolutely destroyed by Nash in 2010 was painful and starting him over Parker that series was such a colossal mistake. What an albatross he'd be on the Spurs' cap had they paid him market value. Give me Patty any day.
One of the small thing that Patty impressed me is that he literally sprint to help up his teammates when they fell to the ground.
Never ever seen a player doing such a gesture. I believe that truly spread a positive energy among the team.
Oh and yes forgot how bad Hill was on pnr D.
Bender TJ ford. Yes he was good in his games here. Sad ending imo.
what?? In Hill's best year (09-10) with the Spurs he shot 40% 3PT with an overall FG% of 48%. This past year Patty shot 43% 3PT and 46% FG.
Hill certainly had his weaknesses, but he worked his ass off. Hill spent the majority of the time out of position defending players 4-6 inches taller. Neither Patty nor Hill can truly run the offense as a PG. The offense that George Hill was asked to run was much more reliant on the PG to initiate the sets and create open shots. The current offense is extremely less PG reliant, especially with Boris on the floor.
Every (non-garbage time) lineup the Spurs used had Patty on the floor with either Parker or Ginobili (mostly Ginobili) along with Belli and Diaw. There are usually 3-4 good passers/ball handlers on the floor with Patty to keep the ball moving. They tried to do the same with Hill, but there were still many times when the regular rotation consisted of Hill-Bogans-Jefferson-McDyess-Duncan. The Spurs most commonly used lineup in 09-10 was Hill-Ginobili-Jefferson-McDyess-Duncan. Imagine Patty in a stagnant offense trying to penetrate and create shots for Bogans, Jefferson and McDyess.
The Pacers offense was ranked 22nd in Offensive Efficiency and 20th in Pace. It was a slow motion abortion run in a continuous loop. It was basically setup to play off all of Hill's weaknesses.
Patty would probably look like a selfish, inefficient chucker in Indiana’s offense. And I think Hill would look like a completely different, productive player in the Spurs current offense.
Patty Mills is the Spurs Steve Kerr. Great shooters are underrated. They allow optimal spacing which makes it very hard to double team anyone. The Spurs know exactly how to break down a double team as Patty Mills will make you pay.
The thought of George Hill defending Ray Allen is pretty damn frightening
All those screens run for Allen in the corner... Damn. Amazing to see that Patty was the only one who could keep up with that.
I voted for TJ Ford, I was really impressed by his passing skills during the very short time before his unfortunate forced retirement, I was very excited to see what he could do. I'm still saddened that he got injured.
Agreed!
1) Manu Ginobili
2) TJ Ford
3) Patty Mills
4) Speedy Claxton
5a)Jacque Vaughn
5b) Nick Van Exel
5c) Beno Udrih
6) George Hill
7) Antonio Daniels
8) Gary Neal
9) Corey Joseph
10) Nando De Colo
Hart, anyone else crack the top ten during Parker Era? Man, have we had at that position even before Parker as well. Previous ten years? 1) Strickland 2) Johnson?
I wouldn't have issues interchanging some for various reasons. I rank them on point skills while playing with us. George Hill (like Antonio Daniels) is not a point guard. It's not his fault, but he's difficult to utilize and put in a list like this. He couldn't handle the ball well when he was here, and his lack of ball-handling ability helped facilitate Indiana's exit. I was a fan, but when you lack the most salient quality of a point guard, you can't be listed very high in a best of point guard list, even for back-ups. Gary Neal may even rank, if Hill is a point guard so is Gary (he played some backup point for us, poorly, like Hill). Gary could change a game in a heartbeat (not with point guard skills), whereas George was a good defender, more athletic, better on fast breaks, better handles than Gary, at least. AFBlue is right about Hill's positive attributes. Sean ****** fits AFBlue's description of Hill, pretty well, too. Sean was no point guard. Hill was a combo guard. He ran the point, was serviceable. At point, that was it. The glass was a little bit on the half-empty side in both positions, but he was more suited as a two. He had flashes of brilliance that you recall, but rarely, if ever, as a point guard. Maybe I'm beating a dead horse.
Speedy Claxton won us a championship when Tony was young and faltered. Not shooting the three, but running the offense like a boss for those critical games. Maybe Patty should be lower because he is in two guard grey area as well, with Hill. But, Patty's ball-handling has been good enough I give him the nod as a legitimate point, grading on continued future improvement, but I am sure there will be a lot of argument there.
TJ was simply fantastic in that role in his limited time. What a great pick-up and horrible loss. He fit in seamlessly.
Everything out of the top four were band-aids, stop-gaps or failed/on-going projects.
After reading the rest of the thread, happy to see all the appreciation for Ford.
Last edited by littlecoyotecoin; 06-18-2014 at 10:08 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
