PDA

View Full Version : George Hill --- what position, what role?



Jim R
07-02-2011, 07:24 PM
What position do you see George Hill playing, or maybe the better question is what role do you see him playing?

daschysta
07-02-2011, 07:33 PM
Combo guard off the bench. The guy isn't a point guard he isn't accustomed to running an offense, it wouldn't be fair to put him in a position to fail. George considers himself a shooting guard, and par t of the reason san antonio was ok trading him was that he didn't develop the point guard skills that they hoped would make tony parker expendable. People already complain about collisons ability to run an offense and find open guys, but he's much more of a point guard on offense than hill is. We don't have the kind of passers or a "point forward" to initiate offense to not start a point guard.

Let's set the guy up to be the best he can be, not throw him into a starting role in a position he isn't comfortable playing.

LA_Confidential
07-02-2011, 09:52 PM
He doesnt need to start, leave that to PG and DC. Hill can come off the bench and play alongside both of them as well as Lance. I dont know if AJ is still under contact or not but I believe that our guard rotation of DC, PG, GH and Lance is very promising.

Dr. Awesome
07-03-2011, 12:52 AM
Why isn't there an option for PG only? I don't care if he starts or comes off the bench, I just don't wanna see him or Collison at SG.

pacer4ever
07-03-2011, 01:16 AM
I would want him to be starting pg. I value his defense over DC's offense. But i feel that the coach wont do that I think we will bring Hill off the bench.

adamscb
07-03-2011, 01:36 AM
i think hill will be a combo guard off the bench. i want to see what DC can do in a point-guard friendly offensive scheme before we bench him. the guy has also had four coaches in two years.

Pacerfan83
07-03-2011, 02:15 AM
His role should be the sixth man where he would flourish and be one of the best in the league at. With his combo guard skills he should get about 25-30 mins a game sometimes more depending on matchups. i say still start DC and PG and Hill could replace either of them and Lance could do the same. IMO those four will make hell of a backcourt rotation.

RamBo_Lamar
07-03-2011, 04:37 AM
I see him as being a very good player to bring off the bench to throw at Derrick Rose
in particular. Someone to help grind away at opposing teams guards.

Steagles
07-03-2011, 07:55 AM
I think he will be a great quality sixth man and a combo guard. I see him playing 25 minutes with many in the latter of the 4th, to guard the opposition's go to guy, like a Rose or Wade or a Carmelo.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

Pacergeek
07-03-2011, 08:00 AM
Hill will be our Jason Terry. Not a starter, but a guy that gets starter minutes. and he will be our closer.

pacer4ever
07-03-2011, 08:08 AM
Hill will be our Jason Terry. Not a starter, but a guy that gets starter minutes. and he will be our closer.

Jason Terry wasn't a closer they had a guy named Dirk a pretty big superstar.

johndozark
07-03-2011, 08:57 AM
I didn't vote. If I had to choose one, it would be combo guard off the bench. But I believe that Hill will start at pg when the opposing pg's offense is more than Collison's defense can handle. Collison would then shift to running the offense against the other team's subs, returning to his starting position for most games.

I believe with others that Hill will get starter's minutes whether he starts or not.

Jim R
07-03-2011, 11:00 AM
Why isn't there an option for PG only? I don't care if he starts or comes off the bench, I just don't wanna see him or Collison at SG.

I highly doubt Bird traded the 15th pick for someone just to get minutes behind Darren Collison. Then again, I don't think they traded the 15th pick for a 24 year old, with NBA championship experience, who is one year removed from a contract year to come off the bench either.

I see George Hill as the Pacers' long term answer at the point guard spot. I don't see Collison doing anything better than Hill when it comes to running an offense that isn't part of the system. Also, Hill is a better shooter and a better defender.

ensergio
07-03-2011, 11:02 AM
Jason Terry wasn't a closer they had a guy named Dirk a pretty big superstar.

Did you see Terry in the finals? The guy was clutch as hell! If this play wasn't a closer's play, i don't know anything:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RngAmEm1Zso&feature=related

Gamble1
07-03-2011, 11:22 AM
Why isn't there an option for PG only? I don't care if he starts or comes off the bench, I just don't wanna see him or Collison at SG.
Why don't you want him at sg? It seems like he can function in that role and he has in the past with a really good team.

I don't think anyone here wants to see Collison at sg.

xIndyFan
07-03-2011, 12:45 PM
not sure, but i guess george hill is supposed to pair with lance off the bench early in the season. if lance ever gets the starter minutes, hill will get backup 2 and backup 1 minutes both.

Psyren
07-03-2011, 03:54 PM
Why isn't there an option for PG only? I don't care if he starts or comes off the bench, I just don't wanna see him or Collison at SG.

He did just fine playing some 2 in San Antonio.

And I don't know why you'd even think we'd try Collison at the 2. You'll be getting your wish on not seeing Collison there.

Infinite MAN_force
07-03-2011, 04:14 PM
I would want him to be starting pg. I value his defense over DC's offense. But i feel that the coach wont do that I think we will bring Hill off the bench.

Hill isn't a PG. In the same amount of minutes last season, Collison averaged twice as many assists as George Hill, and that's playing under Obrien's PG-unfriendly system for most of the season. His numbers from the previous season in NO were even better in less minutes.

Yet people complain that Collison doesn't pass enough? Collison is a scoring PG, Hill isn't a PG. If you think Hill can step in a run the offense as good as DC you are wrong, there is no evidence to support that.

I think Hill in the Jason Terry role is exactly what we should be looking for, but don't put undue expectations on him, he will not be the new starting PG. If he is, everyone will be hating on him in short order.

Jim R
07-03-2011, 04:44 PM
San Antonio doesn't really run a PG centric offense, and I doubt anyone would be disappointed in his play in short order. The bottom line is San Antonio was just as content to deal Parker as they were Hill, leaving Hill as their PG.

pacer4ever
07-03-2011, 07:08 PM
San Antonio doesn't really run a PG centric offense, and I doubt anyone would be disappointed in his play in short order. The bottom line is San Antonio was just as content to deal Parker as they were Hill, leaving Hill as their PG.

all he really did at pg with the Spurs was dribble up the court and pass to Manu. Then Manu would act as the pg in the half court most of the time.

mattie
07-03-2011, 08:26 PM
Jason Terry wasn't a closer they had a guy named Dirk a pretty big superstar.

Of course Dirk was a closer but the Jet has always been one too. Both of them completely dominate scoring in the fourth. Obviously as a much more talented scorer Dirk scores more, but Dallas depended on Jason Terry a lot in the 4th.

George Hill will probably have a similar role here at Indiana. He'll also help DG a lot as he can create his own shot which obviously helps Danny a lot.

The thing is Hill can be very effective playing 30 minutes off the bench helping with whatever the Pacers may need, whether it be defense in place of Collison or offense in place of Paul, so we don't have to worry much about whether he is going to start. It is worth noting though that if Hill were to display quality PG skills (doubtful) that Vogel would probably have no problem replacing Collison with Hill in the starting lineup. Again, I consider that an unlikely scenario, so what I'm really hinting at is we should count on Hill providing what we know he has- scoring ability and defense off the bench.

If he was able to show he can be a good PG, then he can replace DC allowing DC to develop on the bench. This would also negate the defensive problems of having DC on the court so much. DC would also be a quality player off the bench providing JJ Barea like play...

The truth is we are developing a very strong backcourt that I believe we'll be able to depend on in the future. Obviously the frontcourt is a huge question marking going into the near future.

Jim R
07-03-2011, 09:20 PM
all he really did at pg with the Spurs was dribble up the court and pass to Manu. Then Manu would act as the pg in the half court most of the time.

His numbers as a starter might suggest he did more than that. It's not a PG centric offense, and very rarely does Manu get stationary catches. They also still run a decent amount of their offense through Duncan, even as they went toward a more Motion oriented offense. Over the years, teams at the high school and college level which run motion rarely have one player who dominates the ball or dominates assist totals.

Put him in an offense where he initiates the offense and gets secondary touches coming off ball screens, you'll see him up his assist totals.

daschysta
07-03-2011, 10:33 PM
He doesn't even consider himself a point guard, san antonio didn't consider him a point guard, why in the world you consider him one. And "bird wouldn't trade the 15th pick to play behind collison?" Collison is way better than your typical 15th pick and is worth more than a 15th pick in this weak draft too. Have you forgottent hat collison was first team all rookie in a very strong pg centric rookie class? He's worth way more than just the 15th pick. He doesn't have the passing skills, because... it isn't his position, it never has been ,and it isn't going to change after 3 years in the NBA. Hill isn't even guaranteed to be a better player than collison is, let alone point guard. People on this board criminally underrate and unfairly bash collison considering he's a second year point guard, and probably had it harder than anyone else on the team under obriens system which is even worse for point guards than it is for big men.

Collison was stepping up big time in the playoffs before he got hurt, and has all kinds of offensive potential. He won't be a shutdown defender, but he's a heck of a lot better at point guard than a guy who doesn't even play the position, and averaged about 2 assists per game in 30 minutes. Collison would average far more than that even if he was playing off the ball.

Hibbert
07-03-2011, 10:53 PM
I think he starts as our 2 unless we can find a trade partner in a s&t or make the mistake of picking up one of the free agents 2's that is available. If we trade Danny, which for some reason I am thinking there is a good chance we do so, than Hill would start at the 2 and have a great season, DC would too as well. I would love to add a player like Wilson Chandler, or especially Arron Afflalo as our starting 2 but both, I think, are unlikely. I know Chandler is a SF but I think sliding him to the 2 could be done and make him shine.

MyFavMartin
07-03-2011, 10:57 PM
He will be what Brandon Rush was supposed to be... of course, after we picked up PG.

Mackey_Rose
07-04-2011, 10:04 AM
Hill isn't a PG. In the same amount of minutes last season, Collison averaged twice as many assists as George Hill, and that's playing under Obrien's PG-unfriendly system for most of the season. His numbers from the previous season in NO were even better in less minutes.

Yet people complain that Collison doesn't pass enough? Collison is a scoring PG, Hill isn't a PG. If you think Hill can step in a run the offense as good as DC you are wrong, there is no evidence to support that.

I think Hill in the Jason Terry role is exactly what we should be looking for, but don't put undue expectations on him, he will not be the new starting PG. If he is, everyone will be hating on him in short order.

He may have played roughly the same number of minutes, but he never came close to having the ball in his hands the amount of time that Collison did. In this case, there is no way to make a comparison on assist numbers alone. Put the ball in Hill's hands, like Collison was given the ball last season, and you'll see his assist numbers take a big jump.

At this point, neither player is a true point guard. Hill has never been asked to be that kind of player, and Collison was asked to be, but couldn't do it. Offensively, they have the same weaknesses. But defensively, Collison is a sieve. Not only does he do very little to set up others offensively, but he also puts his 4 teammates in a bad position due to his total inability to contain dribble penetration. Hill will not have that problem.

Hill is bigger, stronger, and more interested defensively. I don't believe for a second that we'll lose anything on the offensive end either, but unless Collison has been promised a spot unconditionally, Hill should beat him out for the starting point guard position on his defensive talent alone.

daschysta
07-04-2011, 02:35 PM
Collison is by far the most underrated on the team. He was NEARLY as bad at setting up others as people like the post above make him out to be. He played 29 minutes per game, bump him up to the number of minutes alot of other starting pg's play and he averaged around 7 apg. Average, but not horrible. Hill doesn't consider himself a point guard even, we didn't get the guy to play him out of position, and collison spent half the year having the ball out of his hands at the point guard position too, under a guy named jim obrien, remember him?

If hill were a point guard like san antonio had hoped they would have traded parker like they really wanted to. Hill was supposed to be his heir until, lo and behold it turned out he couldn't play point guard, and that is compared to tony parker, who is not a high assist point guard who is more offensive oriented too.

daschysta
07-04-2011, 02:36 PM
He may have played roughly the same number of minutes, but he never came close to having the ball in his hands the amount of time that Collison did. In this case, there is no way to make a comparison on assist numbers alone. Put the ball in Hill's hands, like Collison was given the ball last season, and you'll see his assist numbers take a big jump.

At this point, neither player is a true point guard. Hill has never been asked to be that kind of player, and Collison was asked to be, but couldn't do it. Offensively, they have the same weaknesses. But defensively, Collison is a sieve. Not only does he do very little to set up others offensively, but he also puts his 4 teammates in a bad position due to his total inability to contain dribble penetration. Hill will not have that problem.

Hill is bigger, stronger, and more interested defensively. I don't believe for a second that we'll lose anything on the offensive end either, but unless Collison has been promised a spot unconditionally, Hill should beat him out for the starting point guard position on his defensive talent alone.

Actually hill quite frequently started at point guard when parker was injured, and despite playing about 36 minutes per game averaged only slightly over 4 apg, and collison played without hte ball alot too.

spreedom
07-04-2011, 03:26 PM
Jason Terry wasn't a closer they had a guy named Dirk a pretty big superstar.

Have you watched the Mavericks over the past 5 or 6 years? In that time Terry has probably almost as many 4th-quarter shot attempts as Dirk. As someone who has watched nearly every Mavs game in that time period, I can tell you that Terry was considered every bit the closer that Dirk was. Hell, Dirk himself called Terry the team's closer early in the season and got killed for it.

Sandman21
07-04-2011, 05:13 PM
Without Jason Terry in Game 6, the Finals goes to a seventh game the way Dirk was shooting in the first half.

Hicks
07-04-2011, 07:46 PM
If hill were a point guard like san antonio had hoped they would have traded parker like they really wanted to. Hill was supposed to be his heir until, lo and behold it turned out he couldn't play point guard, and that is compared to tony parker, who is not a high assist point guard who is more offensive oriented too.

The potential problem with what you said is it's based (as far as I know) on an assumption you're making. Heading into the draft, it sure read to me like San Antonio was ready to trade EITHER OF THEM for the right price, which tells me they still though Hill could replace Tony in the long run.

pacer4ever
07-04-2011, 09:43 PM
Have you watched the Mavericks over the past 5 or 6 years? In that time Terry has probably almost as many 4th-quarter shot attempts as Dirk. As someone who has watched nearly every Mavs game in that time period, I can tell you that Terry was considered every bit the closer that Dirk was. Hell, Dirk himself called Terry the team's closer early in the season and got killed for it.

there is a difference between a clutch shooter and closer. I mean Robert Horry and Derrek Fisher were clutch shooters did that make them closers? I don't think so that was Shaq and Kobes job.

Jim R
07-05-2011, 12:00 AM
He doesn't even consider himself a point guard, san antonio didn't consider him a point guard, why in the world you consider him one. And "bird wouldn't trade the 15th pick to play behind collison?" Collison is way better than your typical 15th pick and is worth more than a 15th pick in this weak draft too. Have you forgottent hat collison was first team all rookie in a very strong pg centric rookie class? He's worth way more than just the 15th pick. He doesn't have the passing skills, because... it isn't his position, it never has been ,and it isn't going to change after 3 years in the NBA. Hill isn't even guaranteed to be a better player than collison is, let alone point guard. People on this board criminally underrate and unfairly bash collison considering he's a second year point guard, and probably had it harder than anyone else on the team under obriens system which is even worse for point guards than it is for big men.

Collison was stepping up big time in the playoffs before he got hurt, and has all kinds of offensive potential. He won't be a shutdown defender, but he's a heck of a lot better at point guard than a guy who doesn't even play the position, and averaged about 2 assists per game in 30 minutes. Collison would average far more than that even if he was playing off the ball.


Your hyperbole is noted.

spreedom
07-05-2011, 12:05 AM
there is a difference between a clutch shooter and closer. I mean Robert Horry and Derrek Fisher were clutch shooters did that make them closers? I don't think so that was Shaq and Kobes job.


Again, have you watched a lot of Mavericks games before this postseason? Because Dirk and Terry were definitely sharing the closer role. I'd almost give a slight edge to Terry.

pacer4ever
07-05-2011, 12:13 AM
Again, have you watched a lot of Mavericks games before this postseason? Because Dirk and Terry were definitely sharing the closer role. I'd almost give a slight edge to Terry.

lol that is comical. Yes i watch Mavs basketball Jet is a very good player and when he is on yes he can close a team out. But even when Dirk is playing bad he is asked to close teams out and normaly does. Put Jet on the pacers can he close teams out? I don't think so he needs Dirk to help him get looks. Dirk doesn't need Jet to be successful IMO. Jet is a very good clutch shooter but i wouldnt call him a closer like Dirk, Kobe, Dwade ect.

spreedom
07-05-2011, 12:46 AM
lol that is comical. Yes i watch Mavs basketball Jet is a very good player and when he is on yes he can close a team out. But even when Dirk is playing bad he is asked to close teams out and normaly does. Put Jet on the pacers can he close teams out? I don't think so he needs Dirk to help him get looks. Dirk doesn't need Jet to be successful IMO. Jet is a very good clutch shooter but i wouldnt call him a closer like Dirk, Kobe, Dwade ect.


No offense, but you just don't have a clue what you're talking about. This is one conversation where you're out of your element. I've watched every Mavericks game for the last 13 years and Terry has been every bit the closer Dirk has since he came to the team. If you call that "comical" then you either don't know what a closer is or you haven't really watched them. Plain and simple.

pacer4ever
07-05-2011, 12:55 AM
No offense, but you just don't have a clue what you're talking about. This is one conversation where you're out of your element. I've watched every Mavericks game for the last 13 years and Terry has been every bit the closer Dirk has since he came to the team. If you call that "comical" then you either don't know what a closer is or you haven't really watched them. Plain and simple.

Ok how i define closer is a guy who can just dominate any time he wants Terry doesn't fit that bill like Kobe Dirk Dwade Jordan ect. There are not very many closers in the league IMO. Terry is a very clutch player but he isnt the type of player you can just isolate and he will win you the game most of the time. Again that's just my opinion.

I just think were not on the same page of the meaning i mean yes Terry is very clutch but a closer? I don't think he is. Closer is an overrated term anyway.

mattie
07-05-2011, 04:16 AM
Ok how i define closer is a guy who can just dominate any time he wants Terry doesn't fit that bill like Kobe Dirk Dwade Jordan ect. There are not very many closers in the league IMO. Terry is a very clutch player but he isnt the type of player you can just isolate and he will win you the game most of the time. Again that's just my opinion.

I just think were not on the same page of the meaning i mean yes Terry is very clutch but a closer? I don't think he is. Closer is an overrated term anyway.

I think your perception must be the problem. You think a guy like Terry who's consistently performed well in the clutch over the years isn't a closer, but Mr Airball himself is:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2011-01-28/research-shows-kobe-not-as-clutch-as-perceived

pacer4ever
07-05-2011, 04:20 AM
I think your perception must be the problem. You think a guy like Terry who's consistently performed well in the clutch over the years isn't a closer, but Mr Airball himself is:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2011-01-28/research-shows-kobe-not-as-clutch-as-perceived

I would take Kobe closing all day over Terry

mattie
07-05-2011, 04:24 AM
I would take Kobe closing all day over Terry

Oh I'm not saying you would. You'll believe what you want no matter if God himself walked down and demonstrated a scientific experiment proving you wrong.

I think you were assuming I was trying to sway your opinion. As you are someone who believes Kobe is clutch, I know that is out of the realm of possibilities. I only posted that for everyone else's benefit.

pacer4ever
07-05-2011, 04:43 AM
Oh I'm not saying you would. You'll believe what you want no matter if God himself walked down and demonstrated a scientific experiment proving you wrong.

I think you were assuming I was trying to sway your opinion. As you are someone who believes Kobe is clutch, I know that is out of the realm of possibilities. I only posted that for everyone else's benefit.

:picard:

how many rings does Kobe have? I don't need to go look at advanced statistics to tell me Kobe is or isn't clutch i watch games and see him finish teams off. Does he fail sometimes? sure everyone does but Kobe can take a game over whenever he wants. For real this is getting out of hand if you would take Terry over Kobe.


And when has Jason Terry ever been guarded as tight as people guard Kobe? Kobe has won 2 titles as the number one option I guess he isn't clutch :rolleyes:


Terry is a clutch player and a big shot taker but he isn't as good of closer as Kobe.

spreedom
07-05-2011, 09:55 AM
Despite what every measurable statistic says....

pacer4ever
07-05-2011, 09:59 AM
Despite what every measurable statistic says....

yes he has 5 rings and was the #1 man for 2 of them so he isnt a closer? How so?

I dont even like Kobe but this is ridiculous in my view explain to me how Terry is the better closer?

so you would honestly take Terry over Kobe? there situations aren't even comparable one is the man and Terry is a 2nd or 3rd option. He isnt asked to shoulder the load just shoot when open and create a little. Again I just think we dis agree due to terminology. I think there are fewer than 15 closers in the NBA right now.

daschysta
07-05-2011, 10:38 AM
5 titles doesn't neccesarily mean that you are incredibly clutch. In fact, it's often been the lakers role players hitting the huge shot, an horry, a fisher, a fox etc...

Not saying he isn't clutch, but alllloooot of the huge recent lakers clutch shots have actually been the role players, and not kobe himself.

pacer4ever
07-05-2011, 11:15 AM
5 titles doesn't neccesarily mean that you are incredibly clutch. In fact, it's often been the lakers role players hitting the huge shot, an horry, a fisher, a fox etc...

Not saying he isn't clutch, but alllloooot of the huge recent lakers clutch shots have actually been the role players, and not kobe himself.

my point isn't clutch shots no doubt Terry is clutch it is who would you rather have the last 5 minutes to finish the game?

Really that isn't even my point i just define closer as a guy who can take a game over whenever he wants. Jason Terry cant take over a game whenever he wants IMO.

spreedom
07-05-2011, 11:53 AM
I love Kobe, and I think he's going to be one of the 5 greatest players ever when his career is over, but he hasn't had a great clutch game in the regular season or playoffs since like 2006. A lot of players around the league still have a lot of respect for him, and they should, but he hasn't been hitting clutch shots for the Lakers for a couple of years now.

I won't compare their careers or their overall games, because honestly that would be pretty insulting to Kobe and unfair to Terry, but if you asked me point blank who I would rather have shooting an 18-footer with the game on the line, it's Jason Terry 9 times out of 10.

Hibbert
07-05-2011, 04:28 PM
Have you watched the Mavericks over the past 5 or 6 years? In that time Terry has probably almost as many 4th-quarter shot attempts as Dirk. As someone who has watched nearly every Mavs game in that time period, I can tell you that Terry was considered every bit the closer that Dirk was. Hell, Dirk himself called Terry the team's closer early in the season and got killed for it.

Very good. This past year Jason Terry averaged 4.9 FGA's in the 4th quarter during the regular season while Dirk averaged 4.1 FGA's.

spreedom
07-05-2011, 04:53 PM
Very good. This past year Jason Terry averaged 4.9 FGA's in the 4th quarter during the regular season while Dirk averaged 4.1 FGA's.

Good call... I was too lazy to look it up. I'm sure Dirk's FTAs partially or completely make up the difference, but that doesn't account for what the scores are (i.e. whether it's a tight game). Terry definitely let it fly in close games.

Sookie
07-05-2011, 05:25 PM
yes he has 5 rings and was the #1 man for 2 of them so he isnt a closer? How so?

I dont even like Kobe but this is ridiculous in my view explain to me how Terry is the better closer?

so you would honestly take Terry over Kobe? there situations aren't even comparable one is the man and Terry is a 2nd or 3rd option. He isnt asked to shoulder the load just shoot when open and create a little. Again I just think we dis agree due to terminology. I think there are fewer than 15 closers in the NBA right now.

What people forget with those statistics, is the difficulty of the shot..and what a "clutch" shot really is. It's not necessarily the last shot. It's not necessarily in the last three minutes. There's no official definition. To me, a "clutch" shot, is the shot that unofficially ends the game.

I remember a few years ago, Lebron hit a last second three pointer to win in the playoffs, vs. Orlando. It was a good moment. But I remember, and I completely agree, Phil Jackson, point blank said "Great Shot by Lebron, but no team in the league would give Kobe that shot." Why? because the shot was a wide open 3 pointer.

So Percentage wise, I'm sure Terry is better. But Terry is playing with Dirk. So his shot, just because of the defense the other team is playing, is significantly easier. He's also taken far less than Kobe. Which I'm sure is a pretty logical conclusion..the more difficult last second shots you take..the lower your percentage is more likely to be.

pacer4ever
07-05-2011, 05:31 PM
What people forget with those statistics, is the difficulty of the shot..and what a "clutch" shot really is. It's not necessarily the last shot. It's not necessarily in the last three minutes. There's no official definition. To me, a "clutch" shot, is the shot that unofficially ends the game.

I remember a few years ago, Lebron hit a last second three pointer to win in the playoffs, vs. Orlando. It was a good moment. But I remember, and I completely agree, Phil Jackson, point blank said "Great Shot by Lebron, but no team in the league would give Kobe that shot." Why? because the shot was a wide open 3 pointer.

So Percentage wise, I'm sure Terry is better. But Terry is playing with Dirk. So his shot, just because of the defense the other team is playing, is significantly easier. He's also taken far less than Kobe. Which I'm sure is a pretty logical conclusion..the more difficult last second shots you take..the lower your percentage is more likely to be.

i agree 100%

spreedom
07-05-2011, 05:33 PM
So Percentage wise, I'm sure Terry is better. But Terry is playing with Dirk. So his shot, just because of the defense the other team is playing, is significantly easier. He's also taken far less than Kobe. Which I'm sure is a pretty logical conclusion..the more difficult last second shots you take..the lower your percentage is more likely to be.

Kobe has played alongside Shaq, Lamar Odom, Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum. Pretty sure he has had teammates that have helped create quality looks for him as well. Dirk's obviously better than all of those guys (except Shaq in his prime) but aside from Dirk and Terry, the Mavs usually haven't had a ton of teammates that have wanted the ball with the game on the line. So I don't really but that as an excuse for Kobe. Terry moves much better without the ball, generally has better shot selection, and shoots a far better percentage. Kobe being Kobe doesn't make up for all of that.

ensergio
07-05-2011, 06:06 PM
So Percentage wise, I'm sure Terry is better. But Terry is playing with Dirk. So his shot, just because of the defense the other team is playing, is significantly easier. He's also taken far less than Kobe. Which I'm sure is a pretty logical conclusion..the more difficult last second shots you take..the lower your percentage is more likely to be.

Is this difficult enough for you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RngAm...eature=related

ensergio
07-05-2011, 06:08 PM
The beggining of the discussion was if Terry was a closer or not. I don't care if Kobe is more a closer than Terry, Terry himself has earned a reputation as a "Game is over, folks" shooter.