PDA

View Full Version : A change in the lineup once Hill returns?



BringJackBack
02-20-2012, 11:21 AM
A change in the lineup once Hill returns?
11:43 PM, Feb. 19, 2012 | Written by Mike Wells | 4 Comments
I came into the season thinking that George Hill would be the Pacers starting point guard by the first week of February.

Hill definitely had an impact by the first week of February, it’s just too bad it’s because he was in a walking boot due to a chip fracture in his left ankle.

So I quit thinking about Hill being the starting point guard.

That was until Sunday when Frank Vogel (without being asked) mentioned that Hill will challenge Darren Collison and Paul George (I can’t see PG moving to the bench) for their starting spots once he returns to the lineup, which could be as early as Tuesday against the New Orleans Hornets.

“Quite honestly as good as D.C. and Paul have been playing, George is going to be a guy who continues to push for those starting jobs,” Vogel said. “He’s that good of a player and we’re looking forward to him getting back.”

What are your thoughts, would you like to see Hill starting at the point and Collison coming off the bench?

I don’t think that would be a bad move.

I think teaming Collison and Tyler Hansbrough together in the second unit will be a positive for Hansbrough because they’re familiar with each other and it should help him get out of his season-long shooting funk (38 percent shooting). Collison and Hansbrough were effective in running the pick-and-roll together last season.

Hill hasn’t played a lot of point guard with the starters this season, but he should be able to make the transition, especially since he started at the point some when Tony Parker was injured while with the Spurs.

Vogel doesn’t have to make the switch right away because Hill will likely be rusty when he returns, but doing it at some point could pay off down the road.

http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/2012/02/19/a-change-in-the-lineup-once-hill-returns/

Indianapolis Star/Mike Wells

---
That would definitely take care of the point guard defense, and he would force more turnovers causing us to go on the break... I'd like the move, but I'm not a huge fan of Collison as the starting point guard so I might be a bit biased here.

Pacerized
02-20-2012, 11:30 AM
I don't think Hill is a pg. He is what he is a great combo guard off the bench. His court vision and passing skills are worse the DC's and DC isn't as good in these areas as I'd like our starting pg to be.
When Hill returns I think we need to put the rotation back to what was working so well earlier in the season. Hopefully we'll be able to add Jeff to that consistantly very soon.

RWB
02-20-2012, 11:30 AM
I like Darren but look forward to Hill's defensive presence with the starters when the change occurs. Having said that I agree with other posters looking for an upgrade at that position overall (ie; a better starter) in the future.

The Sleeze
02-20-2012, 11:31 AM
Yes to starting to over Collison
No to starting over Paul George

Hill, George, Granger would be one elite defensive combo. Plus I have been wanting to move Collison to the second unit where we could definitely use his scoring, and his defense wouldn't be such a liability. Plus Hill has looked much better passing to West on the PnP/PnR.

BringJackBack
02-20-2012, 11:32 AM
Well, hopefully we can absorb a contract that would add a dynamic force to our offense in addition to Foster and DC (Or in your case, Hill) off the bench by the time the trade deadline arrives.

BringJackBack
02-20-2012, 11:34 AM
Yes to starting to over Collison
No to starting over Paul George

Hill, George, Granger would be one elite defensive combo. Plus I have been wanting to move Collison to the second unit where we could definitely use his scoring, and his defense wouldn't be such a liability.

Yeah, I'd like to see DC look for his shot on a consistent basis. I'd like to see him be as aggressive as he was versus Utah, when he dropped 25, and really look for his shot off the bench.

Mackey_Rose
02-20-2012, 11:37 AM
I've advocated for putting Hill in the starting slot since the day the trade was announced. I think it would help both groups.

MillerTime
02-20-2012, 11:39 AM
For those that beleive that Hill cannot be a starting PG, just keep in mind that Hill did start a lot of games in San Antonio while Parker was out. Hill also started when Parker initially returned to the line up.

As such, Hill is every bit if a starting PG

able
02-20-2012, 11:46 AM
I like a pointguard that can point, while i appreciate hill as a sg, i think he stinks in pointing.

Nuntius
02-20-2012, 11:55 AM
George Hill starting at PG over Darren Collison would be amazing for DC. It would also be good for our 1st unit's defense and our 2nd unit's offense. It would probably suck for George Hill, though.

xBulletproof
02-20-2012, 11:55 AM
Vogel said he will 'continue' to push for the starting job. Well, apparently he wasn't pushing hard enough before, because he never started. So no reason to think it will happen as he comes back rusty from an injury.

In other words, don't count on it.

BringJackBack
02-20-2012, 12:06 PM
I just gave the thread the same title Wells did, not trying to be misleading :shrug:

MTM
02-20-2012, 12:09 PM
I think this is Wells playing "pot stirrer" for the sake of stirring the pot. I doubt Vogel makes this change mid-season - more likely he just increases/decreases playing time as need be.

In Mark Jackson's last year with the team, he started, but Travis Best often finished because of his defensive presence.

BlueNGold
02-20-2012, 12:23 PM
I think this is Wells playing "pot stirrer" for the sake of stirring the pot. I doubt Vogel makes this change mid-season - more likely he just increases/decreases playing time as need be.

In Mark Jackson's last year with the team, he started, but Travis Best often finished because of his defensive presence.

But Mark Jackson could run an offense.

George Hill is the better basketball player and his absence is a big reason we lost 5 in a row. He is far and away a better defender. That position goes from one of weakness to strength when he's out there. He can score just as well as Collison and I disagree with people who say his PG skills are worse. Neither one of them are good PG's. The only differences is, George Hill gives you a little size along with excellent defense at the point of attack. Don't discount that.

Personally, I would prefer to see Darren play SG on the second unit with Lance running the point. They would switch on defense to match-up properly. Darren is a pure shooter from midrange and could do incredible damage as a SG on the second unit.

BlueNGold
02-20-2012, 12:26 PM
Yes to starting to over Collison
No to starting over Paul George

Hill, George, Granger would be one elite defensive combo. Plus I have been wanting to move Collison to the second unit where we could definitely use his scoring, and his defense wouldn't be such a liability. Plus Hill has looked much better passing to West on the PnP/PnR.

Yep. We often struggle against bigger starting PG's in the NBA because Collison can't handle them. That is a huge advantage for the opposition, allowing them to get into their offense pretty easily...and for their point to easily see over Darren. ...and good point about his defense on the second unit. It would not be as much of a liability against other backups.

Unclebuck
02-20-2012, 12:29 PM
Who starts doesn't really matter to me, but I want Hill to finish games instead of Collison. If starting Collison allows him to keep his confidence, then start him, but finish with Hill

imawhat
02-20-2012, 12:43 PM
I know Wells has said this all season, but I'm getting the hunch something might happen soon after Hill returns.

Trader Joe
02-20-2012, 12:46 PM
I know Wells has said this all season, but I'm getting the hunch something might happen soon after Hill returns.

TRAID??????????????????

Brad8888
02-20-2012, 12:47 PM
I know Wells has said this all season, but I'm getting the hunch something might happen soon after Hill returns.

Care to elaborate?

Do you mean changing lineups, or do you mean trades?

Trader Joe
02-20-2012, 12:47 PM
I guess I fall in the "I don't really care category for this".

George Hill has shown the ability to perform at a similar level whether as a starter or a bench player. We don't know how Collison would perform off the bench so that does worry me.

Mackey_Rose
02-20-2012, 12:49 PM
I guess I fall in the "I don't really care category for this".

George Hill has shown the ability to perform at a similar level whether as a starter or a bench player. We don't know how Collison would perform off the bench so that does worry me.

Considering the level he's performing at now, isn't it worth a shot to find out?

imawhat
02-20-2012, 12:54 PM
Lineup change. Collison was benched for his defense two games ago, Hill is a good defender, our bench needs more scoring, Vogel's new comments, etc. It feels like all signs are pointing in the direction of a lineup change.

90'sNBARocked
02-20-2012, 12:56 PM
I would consider the switch but also consider DC psychie and if he copuld handle a "demotion" . Vogel and staff probably know the answer to that, but I wouldnt want to try it , if DC would start to "pull a Roy" and go into a shell

I see Hill as an upgrade defensively, but not sure he would run the team any better than DC, whom most would say is a true PG, unlike Hill

That being said, I am so down on DC that I would like to try it. If they did and it happened for an extended period of time, I could see AJ losing the majority of minutes as DC would be the back up PG instead of AJ

RWB
02-20-2012, 12:59 PM
Lineup change. Collison was benched for his defense two games ago,

Around the same time there was some alleged friction behind the scenes?

Also noticed last night Foster seemed to be unhappy (or maybe just constructive) with Tyler last night at one point. Nothing extreme and was only for a second, but something ticked Jeff off.

Shade
02-20-2012, 01:08 PM
I think Vogel's quote is being taken out of context. I see it more as he expects Hill to work his *** off, not that he's going to supplant Paul or Collison (though he might if either of the former has a bad stretch of games).

DC isn't terrible by any means, but I've come around to realize that he's just not the PG I was expecting when we acquired him. We really need a new starter. Collison off the bench would be perfect.

vnzla81
02-20-2012, 01:11 PM
Yep I predicted since the trade happened that Hill was going to take the starting PG spot from DC, I still think is going to happen and I would love if that happens but at the end of the day or year, we are going to still need an starting PG.

Shade
02-20-2012, 01:14 PM
I think we're just going to have to ride this roster into the playoffs and then go after upgrades (Steve Nash, please) in the off-season.

Ace E.Anderson
02-20-2012, 01:31 PM
Everyone talks about Hill's lack of PG skills, well it's not like DC has them either, so it's a push in the court vision category. But Hill is a better scorer, much defender, and has enough size that we can pretty much rotate he and PG within defensive match ups.

I feel this would be a great move for both players. Hill's ability to get his own shot late in the shot clock would fill a void with the starters.

Also Hill is much more comfortable in a grind-it-out style of offense that the other 4 starters (except maybe PG) are more suited for. Meanwhile, Collison's up-tempo, get-it-and-go style of play would fit in MUCH BETTER with the second unit (DC, Stephenson and Jones all love to play at a faster pace).

It most likely WILL NOT happen. But if we aren't going to make any trades, then I honestly think we would be able to avoid our slow/sluggish starts with a move like this.

BoomBaby33
02-20-2012, 01:40 PM
As long as Vogel keeps telling the guys what their role is and sticks to that, Im fine with what he does. I really like George Hill, but I think that takes away from the second unit. Before George's injury, Vogel stuck with him late in games over DC when GH3 was more effective. I just would hope that if Frank does make a change, he stays with it and doesnt dance around the roster where no one knew their role (ala a former coach who will remain nameless).

Hicks
02-20-2012, 01:49 PM
I'm rooting for Hill to start over DC. IMO he's not any worse at being a point guard than DC already is, they can both shoot and score pretty well, but:

1) George is 6'2" and also bigger/stronger with longer arms, DC is barely 6'0" and of small stature in general
2) George plays great defense most of the time, DC struggles to play average defense most of the time.

I'm all for this. If for some reason it doesn't work, worry about that then, but it seems like a good idea to try this.

Sookie
02-20-2012, 01:54 PM
Hill isn't a point guard. Before he was injured, we were all discussing whether AJ needed to be a part of the bench unit because Hill wasn't a point guard. I know people don't think DC's a point guard, but he clearly ran an offense significantly better, IMO. And it's not like our offense was good to start out with.

Regardless, it would be a mistake to take either of them out of the starting lineup. If you need to give Hill more minutes, because either one is playing poorly, that's fine. But don't screw up chemistry.

Hicks
02-20-2012, 01:57 PM
I am just not aware of anything DC does with those four starters that Hill can't do. And defensively it's not debatable as to the upgrade.

Most of our best passing comes from West and Roy anyway. When DC does have the ball, it's usually giving the ball up on the side, running a pick and roll, or feeding the post. Hill can do those things just fine.

Nuntius
02-20-2012, 01:58 PM
I feel this would be a great move for both players.


It will not be a great move for Hill.

sportfireman
02-20-2012, 02:04 PM
I think that's exactly what our team needs....... Hill would be great with the starters and Collison would be a very nice addition to the bench, also keeping the ball out of DJones hands so much.

LA_Confidential
02-20-2012, 02:08 PM
I have no gripes with Hill starting over DC as I feel he is the better all around player but instead of doing that I'd like to see the position upgraded all together. Hill was most effective in SA when he was on the floor w/Parker, playing scrappy d and spotting up for the corner 3.

imawhat
02-20-2012, 02:12 PM
DC is definitely the better passer and I think we will see that as soon as Hill's in the starting lineup. Darren isn't getting his teammate easy baskets though so I think it's a wash. We'll see though. Hill is not a good passer at all.

The Sleeze
02-20-2012, 02:19 PM
I am just not aware of anything DC does with those four starters that Hill can't do. And defensively it's not debatable as to the upgrade.

Most of our best passing comes from West and Roy anyway. When DC does have the ball, it's usually giving the ball up on the side, running a pick and roll, or feeding the post. Hill can do those things just fine.

I was getting ready to say the same thing.....he comes across half court and usually gives the ball to a wing or dumps it down low and then goes and hangs out on one side of the court......you don't need to be a "true" point guard to pull that off.

Plus Hill has better movement without the ball.

vnzla81
02-20-2012, 02:23 PM
I'm rooting for Hill to start over DC. IMO he's not any worse at being a point guard than DC already is, they can both shoot and score pretty well, but:

1) George is 6'2" and also bigger/stronger with longer arms, DC is barely 6'0" and of small stature in general
2) George plays great defense most of the time, DC struggles to play average defense most of the time.

I'm all for this. If for some reason it doesn't work, worry about that then, but it seems like a good idea to try this.

I wonder were are the people that critized you few weeks ago from bringing this idea up?

Nuntius
02-20-2012, 02:56 PM
I wonder were are the people that critized you few weeks ago from bringing this idea up?

Here. I didn't comment on it before but I still don't think that this is a good move for George Hill.

Justin Tyme
02-20-2012, 03:10 PM
DC isn't terrible by any means, but I've come around to realize that he's just not the PG I was expecting when we acquired him.


Name a PG that Bird has gotten that has been what was expected?

Cabbages
Ford
Jack
Watson
Diener
Price
DC
Stephenson
Hill


I know who I liked best of the lot, but that doesn't make them the ideal PG the Pacers needed.

This reminds me of the musical chairs of qtrbacks for the Bears between Wade and Jim Mc.

Justin Tyme
02-20-2012, 03:14 PM
Yep I predicted since the trade happened that Hill was going to take the starting PG spot from DC, I still think is going to happen and I would love if that happens


but at the end of the day or year, we are going to still need an starting PG.

The 2nd part is what I thanked you for.

Justin Tyme
02-20-2012, 03:21 PM
This move will hurt 2 players... Price and Stephenson. Probably Price more than Lance, since Lance is Bird's pet project.

90'sNBARocked
02-20-2012, 03:21 PM
Name a PG that Bird has gotten that has been what was expected?

Cabbages
Ford
Jack
Watson
Diener
Price
DC
Stephenson
Hill


I know who I liked best of the lot, but that doesn't make them the ideal PG the Pacers needed.

This reminds me of the musical chairs of qtrbacks for the Bears between Wade and Jim Mc.

Great analogy with the Bears. Before Cutler, it was McMahon the last true quarterback the bears had

Jammal Tinsley was our last PG , that was exceeding initial expectations....

Been a trainwreck ever since

Sookie
02-20-2012, 03:26 PM
This move will hurt 2 players... Price and Stephenson. Probably Price more than Lance, since Lance is Bird's pet project.

I don't think it would hurt either of them.

I figured, that regardless of how well AJ played, he was going back to the bench the second Hill was healthy. He doesn't deserve it but I think it was pretty obvious that was going to happen. (Seeing as it happened before..) So Price isn't hurt, he's just back at where he was.

And if you make the switch of Hill being the starter, than that would probably mean more minutes for Lance. Because Hill played both positions, but won't be able to do that as much if he's starting at PG. DC can't play both positions, so Lance splits more backup SG minutes with Dahntay.

Nuntius
02-20-2012, 03:28 PM
Cabbages


What was wrong with Sarunas? I wasn't watching any NBA basketball back then so I don't know what went wrong. Was his bad defense the cause of him not being what we were expecting?

BlueNGold
02-20-2012, 03:49 PM
Lineup change. Collison was benched for his defense two games ago, Hill is a good defender, our bench needs more scoring, Vogel's new comments, etc. It feels like all signs are pointing in the direction of a lineup change.

Close to 100% of what Vogel does with the personnel aligns with my views...and I think Hill should start. If that doesn't happen, it will be the first time I've disagreed with Vogel to date...

Ace E.Anderson
02-20-2012, 03:49 PM
Hill isn't a point guard. Before he was injured, we were all discussing whether AJ needed to be a part of the bench unit because Hill wasn't a point guard. I know people don't think DC's a point guard, but he clearly ran an offense significantly better, IMO. And it's not like our offense was good to start out with.

Regardless, it would be a mistake to take either of them out of the starting lineup. If you need to give Hill more minutes, because either one is playing poorly, that's fine. But don't screw up chemistry.

We just came off an extremely ugly 5-game losing streak. I don't think we should worry about screwing up chemistry as much as we should worry about putting our team in the best position to be successful.

BlueNGold
02-20-2012, 03:53 PM
I am just not aware of anything DC does with those four starters that Hill can't do. And defensively it's not debatable as to the upgrade.

Most of our best passing comes from West and Roy anyway. When DC does have the ball, it's usually giving the ball up on the side, running a pick and roll, or feeding the post. Hill can do those things just fine.

Bingo x 3.

There isn't anything Collison can do better than Hill. Maybe his mid range game is better...but not a lot better. Hill, OTOH, is a much, much better at the other half of the entire game. Makes him a much better player to have on the court IMO. Super critical to defend that PG spot in today's NBA.

RWB
02-20-2012, 04:09 PM
I remember there were a couple of times this year I was really impressed with Darren's defense... That's the problem, I only remember a couple of times.

xIndyFan
02-20-2012, 04:24 PM
Close to 100% of what Vogel does with the personnel aligns with my views...and I think Hill should start. If that doesn't happen, it will be the first time I've disagreed with Vogel to date...

not saying you're wrong, but it seems vogel thinks more of DC than most of the PD posters. DC was leading the team in minutes played, [he still might be]. guys that get all the minutes are the guys the coach thinks is the best players.

jmho, but hill makes a real nice combo guard, but he doesn't seem to have the handles or court vision to be a PG full time.

ilive4sports
02-20-2012, 04:31 PM
Hill isn't a point guard. Before he was injured, we were all discussing whether AJ needed to be a part of the bench unit because Hill wasn't a point guard. I know people don't think DC's a point guard, but he clearly ran an offense significantly better, IMO. And it's not like our offense was good to start out with.

Regardless, it would be a mistake to take either of them out of the starting lineup. If you need to give Hill more minutes, because either one is playing poorly, that's fine. But don't screw up chemistry.

I agree with Sookie. Right before the losing streak, DC was running this offense very well. Being a point guard is more than just assists. Look at last night, a couple of times DC made a nice pass to an open West, which got Roy open and West threw it down to Roy for the easy basket. Also, DC doesn't really turn the ball over.

Everyone played terrible during the losing streak, so its hard for me to just blame it on DC.

Hicks
02-20-2012, 04:53 PM
Furthermore, to those of you dissatisfied with Hill at the point on offense, have you considered that once he's consistently not only at the 1, but doing so with our 4 other best players, that he might improve at finding people and making good decisions on a basic level? And I don't mean that in a "he's going to improve his game over what it already is" sort of way, I mean that in a "he was bouncing back and forth between 1 and 2 and playing minutes with guys like Lance, Jones, Tyler, and Lou, and those things probably/possibly made him look worse than he really is at some of these basic PG things".

No one expects him to be Steve Nash, but again I think after a handful of games you won't notice a single thing offensively that you miss DC bringing to the table over George. I really do.

Sookie
02-20-2012, 05:02 PM
Also, if Hill replaces anyone in the starting lineup, it'll be PG.

Regardless of what people here think of DC, Vogel clearly has a pretty high opinion of him. Shown by the amount of playing time DC gets, and has always gotten even when Hill was healthy.

I don't think he'll replace any of them. I think this was just Vogel saying "Hill is like a sixth starter" which he is. But you aren't going to bench your starting PG on an 18-12 team.

BlueNGold
02-20-2012, 05:08 PM
If offense were the only part of the game, I'd agree that DC should start and Paul come off the bench.

Of course, that other 50% is the part that has me going the other way...

BringJackBack
02-20-2012, 05:09 PM
I'd prefer Paul on offense and defense over DC though...

90'sNBARocked
02-20-2012, 05:10 PM
I dont know how people can say G Hill is not a PG. He was the primary, if not only, back up to Tony Parker in San Antonio. Given TP's prior injury history that the Spurs were well awaree of , Popovich must have trusted the PG posiiton to G Hill , if TP was injured or out for an exteneded period of time. G Hill also backed up TP at the point when he was healthy. The only reason I believe the Spurs traded Hill (considering he was one of Pops all time favorites) is because Hill was up for an extension and the Spurs couldnt find a solid deal for Tony Parker. So if Pop see's G Hill as a PG, im sure he is good enough to play the point. Although it can be argued if he plays both positionms well, but not one better than the other

The most immediate and impactful benefit of swapping Hill/DC in the starting line up would be defense. Although the merits of Hill/DC can be debated, I think most would agree George Hill is by far the better defender

BRushWithDeath
02-20-2012, 05:13 PM
I struggle to find any aspect of Collison's game, outside of height, that makes me think he is any more of point guard than George Hill. If we're going to start a combo guard at point, as we have all season, we may as well start the better one. That is George Hill.

Mackey_Rose
02-20-2012, 05:18 PM
Not that he's been great, but if Vogel takes Paul George out of the starting line-up, or reduces his minutes instead of DC, Frank and I are going to have some issues.

Sookie
02-20-2012, 05:18 PM
If offense were the only part of the game, I'd agree that DC should start and Paul come off the bench.

Of course, that other 50% is the part that has me going the other way...

We all know DC is terrible on defense. But Hill isn't a point guard. (I don't understand the Pacer's insistence on trying to force a player who isn't a point guard to become a point guard..but it rarely works.) And as much as everyone likes the idea of the defense the offense will be worse, and we can't afford that. (And what happens when the Pacers face a good defensive PG?) Particularly when, in a majority of cases, it's pretty easy to make up for DC's defense - because most teams don't have a scoring 1 and 2, so DC usually only has to stick with a shooter.

PG has seen an increase in minutes since Hill's been out, not DC. (DC's minutes were arguably higher with Hill playing). And PG has struggled more than DC has of late. (Although, seems to have gotten out of that funk) The board just prefers PG, and the NJ game is fresh on our minds. (not that I would sit down Paul George. Nor do I think Vogel will. I just think, if one of them sits, it would be Paul George.)

Anyway, I think it's all moot, unless the Pacer's start struggling again. Then Vogel will have a decision to make. I don't think either of them come out of the starting lineup. But unless it's Lance that goes to the bench instead of AJ, I think it's very likely that PG's going to be getting less minutes (aka, back to where he was pre-Hill injury) instead of DC losing them. (Unless a bad matchup happens.)

Hicks
02-20-2012, 05:18 PM
Also, if Hill replaces anyone in the starting lineup, it'll be PG.

I strongly disagree. Defense matters, and he usually brings that even when his offense is lacking, and he and Hill together is a tremendous defensive backcourt to start with.

Trader Joe
02-20-2012, 05:19 PM
Not that he's been great, but if Vogel takes Paul George out of the starting line-up, or reduces his minutes instead of DC, Frank and I are going to have some issues.

If he benches him, I might have a mini stroke.

Mackey_Rose
02-20-2012, 05:25 PM
If he benches him, I might have a mini stroke.

Mini? I'd be full-on Tedy Bruschi.

Trader Joe
02-20-2012, 05:27 PM
Dang, that was cold blooded. :laugh:

BlueNGold
02-20-2012, 05:34 PM
We all know DC is terrible on defense. But Hill isn't a point guard. (I don't understand the Pacer's insistence on trying to force a player who isn't a point guard to become a point guard..but it rarely works.)

Got some news. DC isn't any better at the point and he might be less of a floor general. Great mid range and open floor player on offense. Decent from three. But point guard? Nah.

Speaking of points, the only point I'll make is that Hill and DC are about the same player on offense. It's on defense where Hill pulls ahead...

imawhat
02-20-2012, 05:51 PM
Furthermore, to those of you dissatisfied with Hill at the point on offense, have you considered that once he's consistently not only at the 1, but doing so with our 4 other best players, that he might improve at finding people and making good decisions on a basic level? And I don't mean that in a "he's going to improve his game over what it already is" sort of way, I mean that in a "he was bouncing back and forth between 1 and 2 and playing minutes with guys like Lance, Jones, Tyler, and Lou, and those things probably/possibly made him look worse than he really is at some of these basic PG things".

No one expects him to be Steve Nash, but again I think after a handful of games you won't notice a single thing offensively that you miss DC bringing to the table over George. I really do.

I think he can improve with more consistent time at the 1, but it's limited. I still prefer him over Collison in late game pick and rolls, but that's because he can shoot and finish well in clutch. He really, really struggles to see the open man (mostly West) in those situations, decides to pass when it's too late (instincts/feel), and doesn't execute the pass well when he makes it. Those are three key things that make a good point guard. I think you're born with #1 and it's hard to expect improvement with #'s 2 and 3 when you've played your entire life with the ball in your hand and haven't yet figured it out.

I thought Collison showed considerable point guard improvement at the beginning of the season, which was almost entirely in setting the tempo and knowing when not to shoot. These are the areas Hill can improve the most, but Collison is better overall in the other areas (maybe tied with #s 1 and 2, but definitely better with 3).

I think Hill can be serviceable at the point and a huge upgrade on defense, but we really need a true point guard with this roster full of offensive players that can't create off the dribble. That should be priorities 1-5 in roster upgrades.

PacerPenguins
02-20-2012, 05:57 PM
i hope hill starts... he deserves it.... would cause a lot of mismatches in favor of us for once...and that would be one hell of a defensive and offensive starting 5

Strummer
02-20-2012, 06:02 PM
Starting Hill weakens us. Right now Hill can come into the game at either SG or PG as needs dictate. If Paul George gets in foul trouble then Hill comes in at SG. If Collison is having trouble defending the point then Hill comes in at PG.

I prefer my combo guard coming in off the bench.

Sookie
02-20-2012, 06:13 PM
Got some news. DC isn't any better at the point and he might be less of a floor general. Great mid range and open floor player on offense. Decent from three. But point guard? Nah.

Speaking of points, the only point I'll make is that Hill and DC are about the same player on offense. It's on defense where Hill pulls ahead...

Hill is, without question, the better player. Defensively, he's miles ahead of DC. He's also just as capable of a scorer, bigger and stronger etc.

But that doesn't matter too much. Granger is a better player than Tyler, that doesn't mean I want to see Granger as a PF.

DC runs an offense, and runs it pretty well. GH doesn't. I don't know how people have managed to forget that before he was hurt, we were all discussing the possible need to put AJ in the bench unit, because Lance and Hill weren't point guards. Now we want to play without a point guard in the starting unit?

and my point was about what Vogel was more likely to do. Most likely, his quote was just a compliment to George Hill. But if he was truly thinking about it...PG has been replaced by George Hill in crunch time twice, DC hasn't. PG tends to lose to most minutes to Hill throughout the majority of the game. And PG's been struggling more than DC has.

So the idea that if Hill were to enter the starting lineup, it would definitely be for DC and not PG is silly to me. (Also, I know not everyone likes the stat, but the best +/- lineup is DC, PG, Granger, Hibbert, West. The second best is DC, GH, Granger, Hibbert, West. You have to go to the 9th to get a lineup where Hill is the point guard. And that lineup has only played together for three minutes..) Vogel plays DC a lot of minutes. He hesitates to pull him. He clearly respects him more than a lot of people here. I doubt he loses his spot.

And that's not even thinking about the logistic of..who is the backup shooting guard? Because DC can't play that position. Are we going to give Lance more minutes? Dahntay? Are we going to play AJ at the 2? Are we going to make Hill play 40 minutes?

Nuntius
02-20-2012, 06:38 PM
At this point, I want to point something out. A starting line-up is not always made up of a team's 5 best players. There's a reason that Thabo Sefolosha and Daequan Cook start over James Harden.

imawhat
02-20-2012, 07:59 PM
DC runs an offense, and runs it pretty well. GH doesn't. I don't know how people have managed to forget that before he was hurt, we were all discussing the possible need to put AJ in the bench unit, because Lance and Hill weren't point guards. Now we want to play without a point guard in the starting unit?

None of the "point guards" on our team run the offense well. Not Darren, Hill, Lance nor AJ. There's a reason our offense looks best in the hands of Hibbert and West.

spazzxb
02-20-2012, 08:39 PM
Lineup change. Collison was benched for his defense two games ago, Hill is a good defender, our bench needs more scoring, Vogel's new comments, etc. It feels like all signs are pointing in the direction of a lineup change.

That was against DWill and Morrow. The time before when we played New Jersey Collison and GH were both abused , just like DC was in the most recent game. For that reason I don't think the New Jersey game is a a good evaluation tool .If we only use New Jersey as a data point then both LS and AJ outplayed either of these guys. New Jersey, however, is an anomaly. Dwill, as I said before the game, is Dc's Kryptonite. HE is the exact worst Pg in this league for Collison to have to defend.

Personally I like the idea of giving GH a chance to start at point. However I really dilike the idea of GH and DC playing together regularly. The only time I don't mind them on the court together is when the opponents back court is undersized. If the opponent has a 2g, larger than 6'4, that can shoot, we are just asking for trouble playing DC and GH together.

I am a huge advocate of staggering the time PG and DG spend on the bench, however I don't see anyone challenging PG for his spot in the starting lineup.

Shade
02-20-2012, 09:24 PM
What was wrong with Sarunas? I wasn't watching any NBA basketball back then so I don't know what went wrong. Was his bad defense the cause of him not being what we were expecting?

Poor defender, didn't seem to get along with his teammates (probably because he was always barking at them for failing to cover his mistakes), and his shot went south when he got here.

spazzxb
02-20-2012, 09:45 PM
Poor defender, didn't seem to get along with his teammates (probably because he was always barking at them for failing to cover his mistakes), and his shot went south when he got here.

He also had Trouble bringing the ball up the court.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

gummy
02-21-2012, 12:02 AM
He also had Trouble bringing the ball up the court.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus
Yeah. That's putting it mildly. Folded like a lawn chair once a bit of pressure was applied. We had to adjust by having someone else bring the ball up the floor to dump off to Cabbages once he crossed the half court line.

graphic-er
02-21-2012, 01:01 AM
Sarunas is probably the reason well never see Stanko. Bird got burnt by the Euro Superstar.

But to be fair to Sarunas, he was in a Rick Carlye system that was basically one on one ball back then. Not nearly the offensive master piece they run in Dallas.

If Sarunas was around for the JOB ere, he probably would have looked pretty good.

Anthem
02-21-2012, 01:37 AM
But to be fair to Sarunas, he was in a Rick Carlye system that was basically one on one ball back then. Not nearly the offensive master piece they run in Dallas.

If Sarunas was around for the JOB ere, he probably would have looked pretty good.
Dude couldn't ADVANCE THE BALL against NBA pressure. Nellie didn't play him either, remember?

Anthem
02-21-2012, 08:56 AM
Around the same time there was some alleged friction behind the scenes?
No, about the same time there was some guy named DWill lighting us up.

Nuntius
02-21-2012, 10:25 AM
Thanks for the info about Sarunas, spazzxb and Shade.

I can understand where both of his problems stem for. Sarunas was never athletic enough. He was not strong enough or quick enough (the irony is that Šarūnas means quick in Lithuanian) even for European ball. It does explain why he was unable to bring the ball up court despite having good handles. As far as defense goes, he was never a good defender.

Excellent shooter, passer and PnR guy, though. But that's irrelevant when you are getting lit up on the other end of the court. That's also why Ricky Rubio seems to translate better in the NBA. He was always a good defender and he is definitely strong enough to advance the ball under pressure.

Unclebuck
02-21-2012, 10:48 AM
Not that he's been great, but if Vogel takes Paul George out of the starting line-up, or reduces his minutes instead of DC, Frank and I are going to have some issues.


I'd be shocked if Paul George is taken out of the lineup. One of the biggest reasons why the Pacers are pretty good is the combo of Granger and PG together is starting (just starting - they can get much better) to become very troublesome for our opponents. if you put George Hill at the shooting guard, our starting 5 loses a lot of its uniqueness. And clearly the combo of Danny and Paul George is one of the biggest reasons our defense is one of the best in the NBA.

BRushWithDeath
02-21-2012, 10:53 AM
For those who are against the idea of Hill starting at the 1 because he's a combo guard, what makes him less of a PG than Collison?

pacer4ever
02-21-2012, 11:04 AM
I dont know how people can say G Hill is not a PG. He was the primary, if not only, back up to Tony Parker in San Antonio. Given TP's prior injury history that the Spurs were well awaree of , Popovich must have trusted the PG posiiton to G Hill , if TP was injured or out for an exteneded period of time. G Hill also backed up TP at the point when he was healthy. The only reason I believe the Spurs traded Hill (considering he was one of Pops all time favorites) is because Hill was up for an extension and the Spurs couldnt find a solid deal for Tony Parker. So if Pop see's G Hill as a PG, im sure he is good enough to play the point. Although it can be argued if he plays both positionms well, but not one better than the other

The most immediate and impactful benefit of swapping Hill/DC in the starting line up would be defense. Although the merits of Hill/DC can be debated, I think most would agree George Hill is by far the better defender
Manu was the backup to Tony Parker basically when Manu and Hill were in at the same time Manu ran the offense and had the ball the majority of the time. Much like James Harden does when he is in for the Thunder.

Cubs231721
02-21-2012, 11:15 AM
For those who are against the idea of Hill starting at the 1 because he's a combo guard, what makes him less of a PG than Collison?

This could be for a myriad of reasons, but Collison's assist numbers have been consistently much higher than Hill's in their careers. And that's been consistent in the 3 offensive systems Collison has played in so far and at least 2 that Hill has played in. That's also even accounting for Hill's fewer minutes.

Could Hill average over 5 assists a game if given the point guard position with the starters? It's certainly possible, but he's never shown that on any level. And it's uncertain if he could keep the turnovers down if he had the ball that much (his assist to turnover ratio is worse than Collison's for their careers, and Collison this year has improved quite a bit with turnovers).

I see it as you're taking out a known quantity for someone who may be as good as Collison in the PG department, but probably won't be. It just remains to be seen if the Pacers want to take that risk in order to get the defensive upgrade.

vnzla81
02-21-2012, 11:24 AM
For those who are against the idea of Hill starting at the 1 because he's a combo guard, what makes him less of a PG than Collison?

New Orleans, people keep bringing up the 20 or 30 games in NO were DC looked like a competent PG so they expect him to get back to that at any time, if not this year next year and if that doesn't work we wait another one.

Nuntius
02-21-2012, 11:38 AM
For those who are against the idea of Hill starting at the 1 because he's a combo guard, what makes him less of a PG than Collison?

I'm not against the idea of Hill starting at the 1 because he's a combo guard. I'm against the idea of Hill starting at the 1 because I'd hate Hill becoming the scapegoat.

PR07
02-21-2012, 12:16 PM
I look at it more as a comment just to push Collison and George to work hard and continue to improve. I think George Hill may very be superior to DC, but I like the punch he brings from the bench both offensively and defensively and at both guard spots.

xIndyFan
02-21-2012, 12:31 PM
What was wrong with Sarunas? I wasn't watching any NBA basketball back then so I don't know what went wrong. Was his bad defense the cause of him not being what we were expecting?


He also had Trouble bringing the ball up the court.


Manu was the backup to Tony Parker basically when Manu and Hill were in at the same time Manu ran the offense and had the ball the majority of the time. Much like James Harden does when he is in for the Thunder.

jmo, but hill is going to have the same issues as sarunas, if he becomes the starter. there is a big difference between being a fill in at the 1 and starting. hill makes a nice part time point guard, but he is really a shooting guard with nice handles.

pairing hill and lance together makes a nice synergy. [think that's the word] :laugh:. niether of them is a complete PG, but they both are good enough to make pressuring one unsuccessful.

CableKC
02-21-2012, 07:07 PM
http://twitter.com/#!/George_Hill3


Masa_Hill3 @Masa_Hill3:
@George_Hill3 PLEEEEEEASE tell me when will u be back, playing?

INDIANA GEORGE HILL @George_Hill3:
@Masa_Hill3 soon

1:56 PM - 21 Feb 12 via Echofon · Details
As to how soon "soon" will be, hopefully it will be tonight.

vnzla81
02-21-2012, 07:32 PM
Mike Wells
Also In Indiana Pacers
George Hill's return to the lineup is hold for one more day. Hill's ankle was sore when he showed up for shootaround this morning. "He was close," coach Frank Vogel said. "He played well yesterday. A little bit limited, but really close to being 100 percent. We’re expecting him to give it a go tomorrow night (at Charlotte)."

Sookie
02-21-2012, 07:43 PM
For those who are against the idea of Hill starting at the 1 because he's a combo guard, what makes him less of a PG than Collison?

For me, it's not about the stats, but simply the way they look on the floor. I know it's subjective, but it's the way they run an offense. Or in GH's case, doesn't. DC is not my person type of point guard. I get the feeling he's not a lot of people's choice in point guard. But he does always control the floor.

Anyway, statistically..From 82 games..

Hill has a per of 17.8 at SG, and 11.2 at PG (per 48 minutes)

He is also -54 when playing PG, as opposed to +26 at SG (and that's not just a result of being the backup, as AJ is +26 at PG)

Also, although Hill's opponents field goal goes up when he's playing SG, the overall defense is better because teams score 88.1 as opposed to 93.3

We also only score 81 ppg when he's at PG (as opposed to AJ, once again a more fair comparison as he's bench, where we score 89.) and DC where we score 97.

CableKC
02-21-2012, 07:45 PM
Mike Wells
Also In Indiana Pacers
George Hill's return to the lineup is hold for one more day. Hill's ankle was sore when he showed up for shootaround this morning. "He was close," coach Frank Vogel said. "He played well yesterday. A little bit limited, but really close to being 100 percent. We’re expecting him to give it a go tomorrow night (at Charlotte)."
Well, I guess another 6 day rest should get GH back to full health. :shrug:

docpaul
02-21-2012, 11:26 PM
I haven't looked at this in depth, but I'd be willing to bet that a major % of Collison's assist numbers are off simple pick and pops to West.

One of the big things that'll change if Hill is in the starting lineup will be a less effective West.

Additionally, neither Collison or Hill are particularly effective at directly feeding the low post. It's one of our biggest offensive weaknesses, IMO, and has been for a long time.

Hill clearly seems to be a better perimeter and overall defender and also is a more versatile scorer.

Collison is better on the break and with numbers. Better on P&P and P&R.

Neither, IMO, is wholly effective as a starter. I've seen enough this year to think that both are better as backups, and Hill is likely a better SG at that.

mattie
02-22-2012, 12:40 AM
I'm all for giving Hill a shot at PG.

It could possibly solve too big problems we have.

First our starting unit, which will average 40+ minutes per game during the playoffs, will become dominate defensively.

The second problem is offense, which I think the Pacers would get much better as well. I think the only problems we're really having is all of our point guards are dominating the ball. Considering they can't find anyone open, they're only serving to run the shot clock before forcing themselves or someone else on the team with a bad forced late shot.

With Hill in, like he did in San Antonio, you could see him simply rotate the ball more getting the ball in the hands of much better play makers and passers.

The one major flaw in DC's game that I think few recognize is he cannot rotate the ball. This happens frequently. DC brings the ball up the court and dumps it off to one side of the court or the other. He either makes a cut or rotates to the other side of the court. Mean while, you'll see the Pacers playing a good game no matter who has the ball, they're passing the ball, finally the ball hits DC hands and then just STOPS. It has nothing to do with him being a point or not a point. DG, who can't pass worth ****, is among the best at rotating the ball the second it hits his hand. DC? He just dribbles.

If we start Hill, we can have him take the role Derek Fisher had for so long in LA. Play great defense, hit the open shot, and when you're hill you have the ability to possibly attack the defense when they're slow to rotate. I don't think Vogel or Hill have any delusional fantasies about Hill being a great play maker. This would get the ball moving much more than it does with DC in when he just dribbles and then finally shoots.

Paul George I believe has pretty good court vision, wil lend up having the ball in his hands more. This is not to argue that PG is some sort of point forward. I'm just saying he's excellent at running the PnR, he does entry passes better than any player on the team, and he's a very willing passer.

This could solve the problem of guys like DC and AJ just pounding the ball until there's 3 seconds on the shot clock.

I don't think the Pacers necessarily need to have a pure point guard. They have 4 starters right now who are either talented passers or very willing passers (Granger).

Mean while, as has been said frequently in the said, I'm quite certain DC would thrive on the bench, scoring at will, as this has always been one of his best skills.

graphic-er
02-22-2012, 12:47 AM
I'm not sure why they would let Hill play tomorrow against the Bobcats. Why not get him the full 6 days of rest and let it be 100%. If it wasn't good enough to not be sore the next day after practice then what good will it do to to play him in an actual game. They shouldn't let it develop into a chronic problem.

TheDavisBrothers
02-22-2012, 12:49 AM
I'm not sure why they would let Hill play tomorrow against the Bobcats. Why not get him the full 6 days of rest and let it be 100%. If it wasn't good enough to not be sore the next day after practice then what good will it do to to play him in an actual game. They shouldn't let it develop into a chronic problem.

That was my thought too...

HC
02-22-2012, 12:50 AM
I'm not sure why they would let Hill play tomorrow against the Bobcats. Why not get him the full 6 days of rest and let it be 100%. If it wasn't good enough to not be sore the next day after practice then what good will it do to to play him in an actual game. They shouldn't let it develop into a chronic problem.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but maybe coach figures were gonna need the extra help. Charlotte should put up a pretty good effort given what the Pacers just done to them.

vnzla81
02-22-2012, 12:54 AM
I'm not sure why they would let Hill play tomorrow against the Bobcats. Why not get him the full 6 days of rest and let it be 100%. If it wasn't good enough to not be sore the next day after practice then what good will it do to to play him in an actual game. They shouldn't let it develop into a chronic problem.

Don't worry his bones are young he should be fine ;)

TheDavisBrothers
02-22-2012, 12:54 AM
I hadn't thought of it that way, but maybe coach figures were gonna need the extra help. Charlotte should put up a pretty good effort given what the Pacers just done to them.

I don't know if Cha is capable of doing anything good right now... :p

HC
02-22-2012, 12:55 AM
I don't know if Cha is capable of doing anything good right now... :p

:laugh: You know I was thinking exactly that as I typed that up. I just cannot figure any other reason to play Hill tomorrow.

Mackey_Rose
02-22-2012, 12:56 AM
I hadn't thought of it that way, but maybe coach figures were gonna need the extra help. Charlotte should put up a pretty good effort given what the Pacers just done to them.

That joke of a roster could play with the fire of 1000 suns up their collective ***, and it shouldn't make one bit of a difference. They are seriously awful. I really feel for DJ Augustin.

I'd let Hill sit another one out. I'd only even consider suiting him up if he was absolutely, positively 100%, and even then I'd probably rather err on the side of caution.

HC
02-22-2012, 12:57 AM
That joke of a roster could play with the fire of 1000 suns up their collective ***, and it shouldn't make one bit of a difference. They are seriously awful. I really feel for DJ Augustin.

I'd let Hill sit another one out. I'd only even consider suiting him up if he was absolutely, positively 100%, and even then I'd probably rather err on the side of caution.

Maybe coach is going to give one of the guys a rest?

Sookie
02-22-2012, 01:24 AM
That joke of a roster could play with the fire of 1000 suns up their collective ***, and it shouldn't make one bit of a difference. They are seriously awful. I really feel for DJ Augustin.

I'd let Hill sit another one out. I'd only even consider suiting him up if he was absolutely, positively 100%, and even then I'd probably rather err on the side of caution.

I'd sit him out too, on the condition that..if it's a blow out, give him a few minutes of playing time to shake some rust.

Ownagedood
02-22-2012, 10:47 AM
I would rather not put Hill in as starting pg.. he's a combo guard, best suited to play mostly at the 2, with some spot mins at the 1. His talent level is good enough to start, but you aren't going to sit PG, and you really shouldn't start Hill at pg, because he isn't one. I defend DC a ton, because people are too critical of him. But I will say I do wish we had a better pg for our system, to run our offense. Hill is not that guy. He's just a skilled player used as a filler for the position. Quite frankly trading for Rondo may be our best bet. Its a moderate risk, high reward for our system to trade for him.

Price is a better fit for our offense than DC, but DC's talent level is higher, so unfortunetly you can't bench DC to move Price up.