PDA

View Full Version : Please Start George Hill at point guard



russkiy
03-18-2012, 08:18 AM
I know that we lost two game to New York and I think the point guard defense is our problem. I like Collison, but his hight is allowing other team starting point guard to dominate at the beginng of the game. If he comes of the bench, he will be able to play agains reserve point guard and maybe even increase his production. I think ot it time for the change. Allow Hill to make another team poinguard to be uncomfortable from the get go.

D-BONE
03-18-2012, 08:38 AM
I agree, but simply from the standpoint of what do we have to lose at this point? If it doesn't work after a few game, DC can always be reinserted.

OlBlu
03-18-2012, 08:59 AM
I know that we lost two game to New York and I think the point guard defense is our problem. I like Collison, but his hight is allowing other team starting point guard to dominate at the beginng of the game. If he comes of the bench, he will be able to play agains reserve point guard and maybe even increase his production. I think ot it time for the change. Allow Hill to make another team poinguard to be uncomfortable from the get go.

Do you think that will make Granger go better than 5 for 15 from the field and 1 for 6 from three point land? Granger is the key, not Collison......:cool:

russkiy
03-18-2012, 09:11 AM
I belive defense on point guard is very inportent. Granger's scoring can be offset by Roy and/or others. But stopping the starting point guard is a problem for a while now. Not much you can do about that.



Do you think that will make Granger go better than 5 for 15 from the field and 1 for 6 from three point land? Granger is the key, not Collison......:cool:

LetsTalkPacers
03-18-2012, 09:14 AM
its hard to guard a guy that doesn't have to adhere to the traveling violation set in place by the NBA.

sportfireman
03-18-2012, 09:18 AM
its hard to guard a guy that doesn't have to adhere to the traveling violation set in place by the NBA.

ok fair enough against Lin....but he gets beat most nights.

Ownagedood
03-18-2012, 10:04 AM
Please dont. Some of you people don't get the big picture.

You can't have a 6th man tweener guard who excells at SG move into the starting PG spot without having more negatives than positives. It's working pretty well as is. We're Indiana, not a big market team, your gonna have to have a weak spot somewhere. You make the problem worse by changing the starting line like that.

vnzla81
03-18-2012, 10:16 AM
Please dont. Some of you people don't get the big picture.

You can't have a 6th man tweener guard who excells at SG move into the starting PG spot without having more negatives than positives. It's working pretty well as is. We're Indiana, not a big market team, your gonna have to have a weak spot somewhere. You make the problem worse by changing the starting line like that.


http://forums.watchuseek.com/attachments/f2/522232d1317010357-newbie-question-about-new-watch-not-sure-if-serious.jpg

BlueNGold
03-18-2012, 10:29 AM
Please dont. Some of you people don't get the big picture.

You can't have a 6th man tweener guard who excells at SG move into the starting PG spot without having more negatives than positives. It's working pretty well as is. We're Indiana, not a big market team, your gonna have to have a weak spot somewhere. You make the problem worse by changing the starting line like that.

Jamaal Tinsley, and I'm not a fan of his, was a far better PG. Mark Jackson was clearly a much better PG. We've had better and/or mature talent at most positions on the team in fact. The team in the late 90's didn't have much of a weakness. JO/Artest's team was probably more talented than the late 90's team and very solid. No, I don't believe Indy needs to have a weak spot. We may not draw Laker and Celtic talent...maybe not Chicago and Miami either...but we can and will get better than this.

Edit: as to whether the problem is worse by changing the starting lineup, I'm leaving that to Vogel to decide. Chemistry is at stake with that type of move and a trade might be a better option...depending.

rel
03-18-2012, 10:32 AM
Please dont. Some of you people don't get the big picture.

You can't have a 6th man tweener guard who excells at SG move into the starting PG spot without having more negatives than positives. It's working pretty well as is. We're Indiana, not a big market team, your gonna have to have a weak spot somewhere. You make the problem worse by changing the starting line like that.

pretty well as is? Why do we have to settle with a weak spot? what kind of mentality is that?

and it's not like Darren is much of a point to begin with...the guy doesn't even average 5 assists. The only thing he brings to the O is limited scoring or he'll pass it to Paul who'll find Roy or David down low himself. At least with Hill, you're guaranteed more stops on D and has the potential to be more of a scoring threat. I'd say distributing is a moot point because they're both scoring guards...

PR07
03-18-2012, 10:49 AM
There's a lot of blame to go around on this, it's not just Collison. Plus, I think too many people put too much stock into who starts, it's about total minutes and who closes.

Ownagedood
03-18-2012, 10:55 AM
Ya, I get you want a better PG.. I would like one too. But what im saying is making a change with the players we already have isn't the answer. DC is a better PG than GH and he has more overall skills than Price. Our rotation is pretty good as is, if you change it, it's liable to get worse. There really isn't much of a way you can tweak it to make it better with the players we have. We can make a change in the off-season, but let's not try and take DC out of the lineup just because ppl don't like him, he's our most talented PG on the roster. Just bring GH in for spot mins at PG and put Price as the main backup, with GH and Barbosa backing up the 2.

BlueNGold
03-18-2012, 11:07 AM
Ya, I get you want a better PG.. I would like one too. But what im saying is making a change with the players we already have isn't the answer. DC is a better PG than GH and he has more overall skills than Price. Our rotation is pretty good as is, if you change it, it's liable to get worse. There really isn't much of a way you can tweak it to make it better with the players we have. We can make a change in the off-season, but let's not try and take DC out of the lineup just because ppl don't like him, he's our most talented PG on the roster. Just bring GH in for spot mins at PG and put Price as the main backup, with GH and Barbosa backing up the 2.

It might not be the time to do it. So I agree with that. We do not want to upset chemistry which remains good. We will continue to win some games this year and have a shot at a better post season.

But DC is not a better PG than George Hill. This is primarily because George is a much better defender and isn't so small. Offensively, I would also give the edge to George but that's purely my opinion. I think it goes without saying that a move has to be made this summer. IOW, this is the last year you are going to see DC start...unless we a) don't find a replacement AND b) George Hill walks.

rel
03-18-2012, 11:09 AM
Ya, I get you want a better PG.. I would like one too. But what im saying is making a change with the players we already have isn't the answer. DC is a better PG than GH and he has more overall skills than Price. Our rotation is pretty good as is, if you change it, it's liable to get worse. There really isn't much of a way you can tweak it to make it better with the players we have. We can make a change in the off-season, but let's not try and take DC out of the lineup just because ppl don't like him, he's our most talented PG on the roster. Just bring GH in for spot mins at PG and put Price as the main backup, with GH and Barbosa backing up the 2.

yes I understand that we're dealing with players that were already on the team...but when the people who play WITH them on the court completely change, it can make a difference. You never know, Hill may be able to do more with the starting unit and I feel (especially with Barbosa now) DC would play better with the second unit. I understand its 'liable to get worse' but it's not like we've been doing that great as of late. Why not at least try it out and it may potentially work out

LA_Confidential
03-18-2012, 12:13 PM
I want an upgrade at the point as bad as the next fan but now is not the time to start Hill. The reason I say that is because I feel the Pagers absolutely must re-sigh both he and Barbosa. If starts the automatically we are giving other teams the green light to offer him stupid money that would be harder to match.

If we could keep both Hill and Barbosa for somewhere between the 4-6mil range that keeps our bench in tact. Then we need to find the best trade for a starting caliber point guard we can get with DC Tyler and our 1st as the main bargaining chips.

sportfireman
03-18-2012, 12:19 PM
I am definitely in favor of starting Hill. Hill is a better all around player. Hill has played with these guys all season. Starting him is worth a shot, his defense will be needed in the playoffs. Plus our offense mostly consists of feeding Roy, I'm sure Hill is capable of that.

PGisthefuture
03-18-2012, 12:53 PM
There's a lot of blame to go around on this, it's not just Collison. Plus, I think too many people put too much stock into who starts, it's about total minutes and who closes.

True, but we are notorious for getting off to slow starts.

Willbo
03-18-2012, 01:11 PM
Is the difference between DC and Hill that makes one a Point and the other a 'tweener' their size? Or the fact that Hill admits it?

Do I think for a second Hill is a pure point? No

But the same can be said for DC.

That is not to say he is worthless, not by a long shot. But on the who starts at point guard debate I fail to see the downside; passing, initiating the offense, ball security, leadership, shooting, defense. DC probably has the edge in beating the press / on ball pressure but lets not pretend he is a vice with the ball even at the best of times.

Hill at PG with the fulcrum of the offense being Roy in the post / granger & george on the wings and then barbosa and dc taking the offensive burden on the bench makes much more sense than the alternative.

Midcoasted
03-18-2012, 01:14 PM
Horrible idea. Did you not see Hill struggling to even bring the ball up against the defense? Collison is our best ball handler, and it isn't even close. If you put Hill with the starters the ball movement would stop and we would be stuck with a bunch of below average ball handlers on the court. Opposing defenses would love it, because they could completely stop our offense with great defense. What I have seen this year is we can't score against great defense very well, and when Hill is the point guard that problem is too much to overcome because no one on the floor can create for others.

Hill can't handle the ball well enough to run the point, he doesn't have the moves, he sure can't set up or run an offense...Let's just face it, the dude is not nor will he ever be a legit option for starting point guard on our team. He is an undersized shooting guard and that's that.

As many weaknesses Collison has and as much as he hurts the starting 5, he is still our best and only option to start there. Hill is just not capable.

McKeyFan
03-18-2012, 01:20 PM
There's a lot of blame to go around on this, it's not just Collison. Plus, I think too many people put too much stock into who starts, it's about total minutes and who closes.

Doesn't matter who closes if u get down 20 in the first quarter.

Steagles
03-18-2012, 01:21 PM
Collison is our best ball handler

Lance.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

CJ Jones
03-18-2012, 01:43 PM
Horrible idea. Did you not see Hill struggling to even bring the ball up against the defense? Collison is our best ball handler, and it isn't even close. If you put Hill with the starters the ball movement would stop and we would be stuck with a bunch of below average ball handlers on the court. Opposing defenses would love it, because they could completely stop our offense with great defense. What I have seen this year is we can't score against great defense very well, and when Hill is the point guard that problem is too much to overcome because no one on the floor can create for others.

Hill can't handle the ball well enough to run the point, he doesn't have the moves, he sure can't set up or run an offense...Let's just face it, the dude is not nor will he ever be a legit option for starting point guard on our team. He is an undersized shooting guard and that's that.

As many weaknesses Collison has and as much as he hurts the starting 5, he is still our best and only option to start there. Hill is just not capable.

I'd rather have much better defense then a little better ball handling. Our team is flawed offensively regardless who starts at PG. Might as well just start locking people down again.

BlueNGold
03-18-2012, 01:56 PM
Lance.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

I will even admit DC is our best ball handler. But so was TJ Ford and Travis Best. It didn't make them good PG's either although those guys could actually defend. DC can't even do that.

CJ Jones
03-18-2012, 02:04 PM
I will even admit DC is our best ball handler. But so was TJ Ford and Travis Best. It didn't make them good PG's either although those guys could actually defend. DC can't even do that.

I don't know... it's close. Lance is stronger with the ball, he just makes a lot of bad decisions right now.

BlueNGold
03-18-2012, 03:12 PM
I don't know... it's close. Lance is stronger with the ball, he just makes a lot of bad decisions right now.

Lance is our best passer and might have more natural basketball skills than anyone on the team. I'd have to see him under pressure more to conclude he can dribble through pressure as well as Collison. FWIW, I would rather see Lance start at PG than DC. At least try it with the starters for 5 straight games to see what we have. If he falls on his face, set him aside for the season as a 3rd string spot minute backup. But I think the Pacers should at least try it. Only problem...this is a basketball view not a people view. Decisions are always more complicated than simply looking at the basketball skills and making a move. The dynamics of the locker room and other things all need to be taken into account and hardly anyone on this board is privy to it. So...even when the majority of posters probably think Hill should start over Collison, we don't know it all...

russkiy
03-18-2012, 03:15 PM
I agree. You remeber in the beginning of the year when we played excellent defence! I think with the addition of Hill to starting lineup we can do the same!!!



I'd rather have much better defense then a little better ball handling. Our team is flawed offensively regardless who starts at PG. Might as well just start locking people down again.

Nuntius
03-18-2012, 03:17 PM
Lance.


If Lance learned to control the tempo and hit a jumper I'd be all for starting him.

Sherlock
03-18-2012, 03:43 PM
Just watched the DVR of Knicks vs. Pacer.

Wonder why every time they pick and roll they can create something.
If not, at least they will create a mismatch, e.g. Collison against Melo.

We wanted to execute PnR, but without any success.
Basically the situation is, they fronted the ball handler, they gave the ball handler problem, and they earned seconds to switched back the defense match up, and 10 seconds passed.


I am all for the idea of starting G. Hill, actually was for it during the 4-loss skip.

Defensive wise, it is an up grade.
Offensive wise, nothing to lose.

IMHO.

CJ Jones
03-18-2012, 03:54 PM
Lance is our best passer and might have more natural basketball skills than anyone on the team. I'd have to see him under pressure more to conclude he can dribble through pressure as well as Collison. FWIW, I would rather see Lance start at PG than DC. At least try it with the starters for 5 straight games to see what we have. If he falls on his face, set him aside for the season as a 3rd string spot minute backup. But I think the Pacers should at least try it. Only problem...this is a basketball view not a people view. Decisions are always more complicated than simply looking at the basketball skills and making a move. The dynamics of the locker room and other things all need to be taken into account and hardly anyone on this board is privy to it. So...even when the majority of posters probably think Hill should start over Collison, we don't know it all...

Yeah, I realize that. I do really like the chemistry on the team, and I'm not fond of hurting people's feelings, but at some point you gotta try something different. You're right though, politics plays a big part in decision making, and the fact that Vogel's a rookie coach makes it an even more delicate situation.

jeffg-body
03-19-2012, 12:23 AM
DC has been struggling a bit lately but I still thinks he is the better option to start the game. It also allows GH the opportunity to come off the bench and provide high energy and intensity on both ends of the court while not having worry about gassing himself. With the addition of Barbosa, DC may have some minutes taken away which may be a good thing to keep him fresh for the playoffs. I really want to see that 2nd unit of GH and Barbosa at the same time on the floor.

Midcoasted
03-19-2012, 06:56 AM
Lance is our best passer and might have more natural basketball skills than anyone on the team. I'd have to see him under pressure more to conclude he can dribble through pressure as well as Collison. FWIW, I would rather see Lance start at PG than DC. At least try it with the starters for 5 straight games to see what we have. If he falls on his face, set him aside for the season as a 3rd string spot minute backup. But I think the Pacers should at least try it. Only problem...this is a basketball view not a people view. Decisions are always more complicated than simply looking at the basketball skills and making a move. The dynamics of the locker room and other things all need to be taken into account and hardly anyone on this board is privy to it. So...even when the majority of posters probably think Hill should start over Collison, we don't know it all...

I wasn't even considering Lance in my thoughts because the situation does not allow for our best point guard to play. You do raise a good point though that while Lance may be close to Collison in ball handling skills, we have to give the benefit of the doubt to Collison because we haven't seen Lance enough against pressure defense. Regardless though, Lance is a way better passer and the only point/combo guard on our team that can regularly create an open look for a teammate.

You also raise some good points about politics and chemistry. Starting Lance may be the best option from a basketball perspective, but it could tear apart our team. I think we lost the Knicks games because Karma is getting our asses. Their 2nd year point guard who has all the natural talent in the world that no one believed was good enough to be a starter in the NBA is getting a chance and making a big impact. While our 2nd year point guard FROM New York who has more talent and potential than Lin is riding the pine. I know for a fact Lance can guard Lin. Collison or Price, not so much.

I'm close to starting a "Start Lance" thread, but I would just be called an idiot for saying Lance could save our team just like the great Lin did for the Knicks. Lance can't possibly ever be as good as Lin, even though he has more talent and a better NBA body and strength right? I mean after all, this IS Lindianapolis for crying out loud! Who would ever believe me that our 2nd year point guard could ever match the greatness of any Knicks player who came out of nowhere?

Dr. Hibbert
03-19-2012, 08:28 AM
Do you think that will make Granger go better than 5 for 15 from the field and 1 for 6 from three point land? Granger is the key, not Collison......:cool:

Please remember you're not allowed to criticize Granger, or Granger's effort, though.

Sincerely, PacersDigest.

ksuttonjr76
03-19-2012, 08:40 AM
I wasn't even considering Lance in my thoughts because the situation does not allow for our best point guard to play. You do raise a good point though that while Lance may be close to Collison in ball handling skills, we have to give the benefit of the doubt to Collison because we haven't seen Lance enough against pressure defense. Regardless though, Lance is a way better passer and the only point/combo guard on our team that can regularly create an open look for a teammate.

You also raise some good points about politics and chemistry. Starting Lance may be the best option from a basketball perspective, but it could tear apart our team. I think we lost the Knicks games because Karma is getting our asses. Their 2nd year point guard who has all the natural talent in the world that no one believed was good enough to be a starter in the NBA is getting a chance and making a big impact. While our 2nd year point guard FROM New York who has more talent and potential than Lin is riding the pine. I know for a fact Lance can guard Lin. Collison or Price, not so much.

I'm close to starting a "Start Lance" thread, but I would just be called an idiot for saying Lance could save our team just like the great Lin did for the Knicks. Lance can't possibly ever be as good as Lin, even though he has more talent and a better NBA body and strength right? I mean after all, this IS Lindianapolis for crying out loud! Who would ever believe me that our 2nd year point guard could ever match the greatness of any Knicks player who came out of nowhere?

Personally, I would like to see Vogel start Hill, but I'm REALLY more curious about Lance's potential at the starting PG spot. I'm really torn about this player. Point blank, Lance hasn't played enough minutes for me to be 100% sure of his NBA capabilities. When he has played, I've been mostly impressed with his dribble and passing skills. When he makes mistakes, I'm normally chalk them up as "rookie" or "lack of meaningful playing time" mistakes. I understand not starting him this late in the season, but I really do hope that Vogel gives a bigger role next season. Lance has too much upward potential just to keep him on the bench.

xIndyFan
03-19-2012, 10:32 AM
this is one of the things i would be worried about starting george hill at the point. notice that hill is running this against mike bibby. bibby is probably the worse defender in the league. this is george hill as a PG in the best circumstances possible.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DuJnbZeAL5o?version=3&feature=player_embedded"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DuJnbZeAL5o?version=3&feature=player_embedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

Hicks
03-19-2012, 10:42 AM
You think that was the best circumstance possible for Hill at the PG? You have to be joking. Don't confuse the best ONE ON ONE MATCHUP possible with the best circumstances possible as being the PG of the unit on the floor. He and Lou weren't on the same page, obviously, but beyond that it's not as if that's what you get every trip down the floor. This is silly.

QuickRelease
03-19-2012, 11:27 AM
Please dont. Some of you people don't get the big picture.

You can't have a 6th man tweener guard who excells at SG move into the starting PG spot without having more negatives than positives. It's working pretty well as is. We're Indiana, not a big market team, your gonna have to have a weak spot somewhere. You make the problem worse by changing the starting line like that.
He did fine starting for San Antonio when Parker went down. Not really sure what being a small market team has to do with this discussion. From a basketball perspective, Hill couldn't do any worse than DC right now.

graphic-er
03-19-2012, 12:18 PM
DC has been struggling a bit lately but I still thinks he is the better option to start the game. It also allows GH the opportunity to come off the bench and provide high energy and intensity on both ends of the court while not having worry about gassing himself. With the addition of Barbosa, DC may have some minutes taken away which may be a good thing to keep him fresh for the playoffs. I really want to see that 2nd unit of GH and Barbosa at the same time on the floor.

I can't disagree with this more.

GH is pretty good at making the right plays. Half of the time DC will dribble around for most the shot clock and then try to beat his man for a pull up jumper or dump it off with the shot clock about to expire. It kills me to see DC looking for his own shot when we have 4 other guys in the starting line up who are capable of scoring just as well. But he is in capable of setting up the pass. Be a freaking point guard. I'd have no problem with DC looking for his shot in the 2nd unit.

graphic-er
03-19-2012, 12:20 PM
this is one of the things i would be worried about starting george hill at the point. notice that hill is running this against mike bibby. bibby is probably the worse defender in the league. this is george hill as a PG in the best circumstances possible.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DuJnbZeAL5o?version=3&feature=player_embedded"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DuJnbZeAL5o?version=3&feature=player_embedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

You have got to kidding with this. THose were the right passes to make by Hill each time. It was Lou being to eager to cut to the basket. Replace Lou with West, and thats an open Jumper every time.

I remember saying several times at the games before Hill got hurt, "Man poor George Hill, has to play with these scrubs"

mattie
03-19-2012, 03:57 PM
http://www.indycornrows.com/2012/2/7/2736126/the-pacers-pick-and-roll-and-other-difficult-truths

russkiy
03-20-2012, 09:41 PM
Based on the minutes played against one of the best poinguards in the leagu, i think he proved that he can run the team and bring the ball up.

mattie
03-21-2012, 12:23 AM
I don't really care if he starts though, as long as we can count on him to close out the game like this every night. I mean we'll get better starts if he was to start, but either way we should be able to finish strong every night..

ilive4sports
03-21-2012, 12:27 AM
Please remember you're not allowed to criticize Granger, or Granger's effort, though.

Sincerely, PacersDigest.

Now this is hilarious. If anything, PD is over critical of Danny. Oh man, too funny.

Dr. Hibbert
03-21-2012, 08:38 AM
Anyone else find it odd/concerning/interesting (take your pick) that for the 2nd year in a row, the bench is more fun to watch than the starting five? Or at least trending in that direction again?

I understand that on a bad team, in the sense that "the backup QB is always better!" on a bad football team. But the Pacers aren't a bad team. They're an above-average to good team. This seems odd, given that fact.

BillS
03-21-2012, 09:01 AM
Anyone else find it odd/concerning/interesting (take your pick) that for the 2nd year in a row, the bench is more fun to watch than the starting five? Or at least trending in that direction again?

I understand that on a bad team, in the sense that "the backup QB is always better!" on a bad football team. But the Pacers aren't a bad team. They're an above-average to good team. This seems odd, given that fact.

In some ways, I think a decent to good bench will ALWAYS be more "interesting" than the starters, at least absent a superstar in the starting lineup.

The reasons would be:

- by definition they are not matched up against the top players on the other team (I do note, however, that the bench spent a lot of time in against the Clip's starters).

- they are the underdogs, the guys who have to scrap for their minutes. They are usually going to be more active trying to prove their worth.

- they are in a win/win situation - if they don't do well in a game, well, they're the BENCH. If they DO well in a game, they are playing above their heads and are fascinating because of it.

- there's a lot more freedom to mix up the bench than there is the starters.

- most of your "characters" tend to be bench guys.

Dr. Hibbert
03-21-2012, 09:11 AM
In some ways, I think a decent to good bench will ALWAYS be more "interesting" than the starters, at least absent a superstar in the starting lineup.

The reasons would be:

- by definition they are not matched up against the top players on the other team (I do note, however, that the bench spent a lot of time in against the Clip's starters).

- they are the underdogs, the guys who have to scrap for their minutes. They are usually going to be more active trying to prove their worth.

- they are in a win/win situation - if they don't do well in a game, well, they're the BENCH. If they DO well in a game, they are playing above their heads and are fascinating because of it.

- there's a lot more freedom to mix up the bench than there is the starters.

- most of your "characters" tend to be bench guys.

Totally fair, valid, appreciated response. Especially the win/win part. Probably the best response I've received to this question so far, so thanks!

PacersForever
03-21-2012, 09:21 AM
I want Hill to start but it seems like Hill and Barbosa have some nice on the court chemistry.

pacergod2
03-21-2012, 10:14 AM
I just want to see Hill playing against the other team's starters for defensive purposes. I don't necessarily want him to take too many minutes away from Collison. I would love to see the transition in the first quarter of the game around the six to eight minute mark in order to push the tempo of the starters and throw the pace of the game into high gear where it really pushes the other starters and gets them tired quicker. Collison can get a lot of his burn against other second units as well, where he will have a distinct skill advantage over most.

I definitely want Hill in the game down the stretch as well, obviously for defensive purposes. As for the minutes played, if we get both players significant time, then there shouldn't be issues over who "starts". Who cares? Get your minutes where you can be most effective for the team. Collison's calling card is his quickness and with Barbosa's quickness too, they can really push the tempo hard against starters as they tire and against lesser second units where they don't hurt us defensively.

QuickRelease
03-23-2012, 05:06 PM
I was reading an article on Rubio, and Love was talking about how much better it was to play with a pass first pg.

"Love credits Rubio for playing a major role in improving his scoring average by five points. Rubio will be a key figure in keeping Love happy in Minnesota.

'I never played with a pass-first point guard,' Love said. 'He hits me rolling to the basket with easy buckets. The jump in my scoring has been from the work I’ve put in during the off-season. But a lot of it had to do with how he was setting me up on the court. He’s been great to play with and someone I want to continue to grow with.'"

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=mc-spears_kevin_love_timberwolves_contract_rubio_0322 12