PDA

View Full Version : I can't wait much longer for a true point guard



McKeyFan
06-23-2012, 03:39 PM
Will we move up in the draft for a big man 4-5?

Will we trade for a big or a shooter, like the once sought for Jamaal Crawford?

Will we fail to acquire Williams or Nash in a trade, and then not look for any other point guards out there, even though they aren't quite as good?

Personally, I am exhausted by the fact that we haven't traded for or drafted a true point guard in years. We passed on Rondo, Holiday, Ty Lawson, and countless others. We traded for a point guard that can't see the floor. We gave up our draft pick last year for a great guy and great addition who is really a combo guard.

I'm not all that excited about Walsh coming back to Pacerland, but at least he had the sense to see the skills in Tinsley (hard to predict his character.) Walsh also acquired Mark Jackson twice, going only a year without having something most of us see as pretty non-negotiable—a person on your team who can run the offense.

Bird seems to think this position is negotiable. I'm tired of waiting. I sure hope this is the summer.

Jeremy
06-23-2012, 03:50 PM
I for one am glad we did not get Jamal Crawford. He's a chucker.

rm1369
06-23-2012, 04:15 PM
I long ago tired of Birds neglect for the position. Rondo, Lowry, or Holiday should be pacers. If Bird is building a star less team, then PG play becomes more critical, IMO, because execution becomes even more critical - you can't rely on great individual play to create something in tough spots.

Peck
06-23-2012, 04:18 PM
Will we move up in the draft for a big man 4-5?

Will we trade for a big or a shooter, like the once sought for Jamaal Crawford?

Will we fail to acquire Williams or Nash in a trade, and then not look for any other point guards out there, even though they aren't quite as good?

Personally, I am exhausted by the fact that we haven't traded for or drafted a true point guard in years. We passed on Rondo, Holiday, Ty Lawson, and countless others. We traded for a point guard that can't see the floor. We gave up our draft pick last year for a great guy and great addition who is really a combo guard.

I'm not all that excited about Walsh coming back to Pacerland, but at least he had the sense to see the skills in Tinsley (hard to predict his character.) Walsh also acquired Mark Jackson twice, going only a year without having something most of us see as pretty non-negotiable—a person on your team who can run the offense.

Bird seems to think this position is negotiable. I'm tired of waiting. I sure hope this is the summer.

You know in retrospect Bird never really played with a really good true point guard that I can remember. Dennis Johnson was always more of a defender/combo guard (a lot like Hill now that I think about it although D.J. was far superior), Tiny Archibal was always a scorer. Ainge was a combo guard as well.

Hmmmmmm.... I hadn't given it much previous thought but Bird may really truely not believe in the position the way that some of us view it. That would go a long way in explaining how he tolerated O'Brien for so long.

Hicks
06-23-2012, 04:34 PM
You know in retrospect Bird never really played with a really good true point guard that I can remember. Dennis Johnson was always more of a defender/combo guard (a lot like Hill now that I think about it although D.J. was far superior), Tiny Archibal was always a scorer. Ainge was a combo guard as well.

Hmmmmmm.... I hadn't given it much previous thought but Bird may really truely not believe in the position the way that some of us view it. That would go a long way in explaining how he tolerated O'Brien for so long.

Makes sense. The problem with that is he was one of the best passers of all time at the SF position, and he's assembled this team with some of the worst passers at SF.

OlBlu
06-23-2012, 05:02 PM
Will we move up in the draft for a big man 4-5?

Will we trade for a big or a shooter, like the once sought for Jamaal Crawford?

Will we fail to acquire Williams or Nash in a trade, and then not look for any other point guards out there, even though they aren't quite as good?

Personally, I am exhausted by the fact that we haven't traded for or drafted a true point guard in years. We passed on Rondo, Holiday, Ty Lawson, and countless others. We traded for a point guard that can't see the floor. We gave up our draft pick last year for a great guy and great addition who is really a combo guard.

I'm not all that excited about Walsh coming back to Pacerland, but at least he had the sense to see the skills in Tinsley (hard to predict his character.) Walsh also acquired Mark Jackson twice, going only a year without having something most of us see as pretty non-negotiable—a person on your team who can run the offense.

Bird seems to think this position is negotiable. I'm tired of waiting. I sure hope this is the summer.

You can't wait much longer? What do you intend to do about it. Bird may look at the PG position differently that most posters here. I think he is happy with what we have there......:cool:

Shade
06-23-2012, 06:31 PM
If we don't upgrade the PG position significantly this offseason, we will have zero chance of getting past Miami next year.

OlBlu
06-23-2012, 06:49 PM
If we don't upgrade the PG position significantly this offseason, we will have zero chance of getting past Miami next year.

The Pacers have a zero chance of getting past Miami anytime in the forseeable future. They don't even need a PG. You could put Chris Paul on this team and they wouldn't get past Miami. Miami has three Superstars we can do nothing with and not one of them is a PG. Our SF can't guard their SF, our PF can guard their PF and our SG can't guard their shooting guard. If they had Bosh for that series, they win 4-0 but you have to remember that Orlando would have beaten the Pacers if Howard had been playing. They might not have won a game their either.......:cool:

johndozark
06-23-2012, 06:56 PM
I agree that Priority One is a true point guard ready to run the offense. This guard should be able to operate in transition, from the three point line, in penetrating into the paint and either dishing or shooting depending on what the defense does, and in running set offensive plays. Ideally this guard should be at least adequate on defense, not too small or slow to guard the opposing point guard.

My impression that our best long-term solution for this position is Goran Dragic in free agency.

This video shows some of his skills versus the Lakers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7fs64zIGCo

He is still young and shows that he has the drive to improve. I believe that we could have him at a reasonable, albeit not cheap, price. He could turn out to be great.

yoadknux
06-23-2012, 07:01 PM
There aren't that many "cut above" point guards out there. you have about 3-4 really good ones in each conference. (Rose, Rondo, Deron, Parker, Westbrook, CP3, Nash)
Our best chance of getting that point guard is by kidnapping Nash's family and telling him he must join Indiana if he wants to see them again. We tried to get Rondo earlier this season if you remember but the trade failed.

Sparhawk
06-23-2012, 07:05 PM
If we don't upgrade the PG position significantly this offseason, we will have zero chance of getting past Miami next year.

A couple bench players capable of scoring a point or two would also be nice.

Sparhawk
06-23-2012, 07:06 PM
I agree that Priority One is a true point guard ready to run the offense. This guard should be able to operate in transition, from the three point line, in penetrating into the paint and either dishing or shooting depending on what the defense does, and in running set offensive plays. Ideally this guard should be at least adequate on defense, not too small or slow to guard the opposing point guard.

My impression that our best long-term solution for this position is Goran Dragic in free agency.

This video shows some of his skills versus the Lakers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7fs64zIGCo

He is still young and shows that he has the drive to improve. I believe that we could have him at a reasonable, albeit not cheap, price. He could turn out to be great.

I like how he can use both hands equally well at the basket.

CableKC
06-23-2012, 07:15 PM
Maybe the title of this thread should be changed to "I'm can't wait much longer for Bird to get someone ( at any position ) that can properly run the offense". :shrug:

2minutes twoa
06-23-2012, 07:25 PM
I agree that Priority One is a true point guard ready to run the offense. This guard should be able to operate in transition, from the three point line, in penetrating into the paint and either dishing or shooting depending on what the defense does, and in running set offensive plays. Ideally this guard should be at least adequate on defense, not too small or slow to guard the opposing point guard.

He is still young and shows that he has the drive to improve. I believe that we could have him at a reasonable, albeit not cheap, price. He could turn out to be great.

I really do like his court vision and the way he distributes the ball. I think either of Houston's point guards would help us.

D-BONE
06-23-2012, 07:36 PM
Personally, I am exhausted by the fact that we haven't traded for or drafted a true point guard in years. We passed on Rondo, Holiday, Ty Lawson, and countless others. We traded for a point guard that can't see the floor. We gave up our draft pick last year for a great guy and great addition who is really a combo guard.

Bird seems to think this position is negotiable. I'm tired of waiting. I sure hope this is the summer.

Bold = Motherfletcher! (Especially Rondo, of course, but all given our PG drought.) I'm also tired of waiting, but it' a lot bigger task this time I think, as those three were all right there for the picking. It's going to take some serious wheeling and dealing to end up with somebody of the caliber of those three.

Nuntius
06-24-2012, 12:24 AM
We passed on Rondo, Holiday, Ty Lawson, and countless others.

Holiday and Ty Lawson are not "true" point guards either.

vnzla81
06-24-2012, 12:32 AM
I agree with the "true point guard thinking" but to me is so hard to find one that my second option would be to find a point guard in the same mold of Westbrook, Rose, Wall, Lawson, etc, not "true point guards" per se but great players that can dominate their opponents every night.

IndyPacer
06-24-2012, 12:59 AM
True point guard, huh? Sounds good, but I'd also very strongly consider a point guard who had at least solid passing and is an excellent defender or had other important skills. Is Lillard a "true" point guard? He'd certainly be my top choice of point guards in the upcoming draft regardless of how "true" he is.

Nuntius
06-24-2012, 02:20 AM
I agree with the "true point guard thinking" but to me is so hard to find one that my second option would be to find a point guard in the same mold of Westbrook, Rose, Wall, Lawson, etc, not "true point guards" per se but great players that can dominate their opponents every night.

It's not that finding a true point guard is so hard. It's that most true point guards come with disadvantages. Calderon cannot play D. Rondo is a below mediocre jump shooter. Rubio has difficulty finishing around the rim and is not much of a shooter either.

We do need to find someone to feed the post in every trip. though.

Peck
06-24-2012, 02:49 AM
I agree with the "true point guard thinking" but to me is so hard to find one that my second option would be to find a point guard in the same mold of Westbrook, Rose, Wall, Lawson, etc, not "true point guards" per se but great players that can dominate their opponents every night.

This can be filed under the catagory of no **** shirlock!

What you mean that Lance doesn't do it for you? :tongue:

3 8 thee great t h
06-24-2012, 05:23 AM
If we got dragic to be our starting pg by the trade deadline half of the board would hate him and say that bird made another mistake.... I can almost guarantee it!

I also don't mind which pg from Houston we get and I kno I'm in the minority with it but would love to still get mayo. Having mayo next to hill would kinda be like the thunder and lightening scenario. One offensive minded the other defensive but both can attack your defense and make big time plays if you give them the chance. Plus both actually see what a conference final game feels like would also be good for the team

Hicks
06-24-2012, 09:56 AM
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they just plan to re-sign George Hill and stick with him at point.

OlBlu
06-24-2012, 11:16 AM
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they just plan to re-sign George Hill and stick with him at point.

I think that is exactly what will happen and I do not believe that Bird buys into PG being our biggest need.......:cool:

graphic-er
06-24-2012, 11:30 AM
Couple of points here, if the Pacers want Dragic they could certainly have him come July. I certainly hope they do. He could be had for probably the same money as George Hill as well. But They will also have to compete with Portland, LA, PHX, Dallas,

I'm not sure what Hill's ambitions are in terms of being a starter, but he has to realize that he real value is that he can be the first guard off the bench and play a starters level at both positions. I think thats pretty rare in this league.

PR07
06-24-2012, 11:49 AM
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they just plan to re-sign George Hill and stick with him at point.

This will probably happen because if the Pacers aren't able to get Nash or Deron Williams which is more than likely true, there aren't really any other clear upgrades at the position. It'll happen by default. Guys like Dragic, Lowry, etc. don't strike me as clear upgrades over George Hill.

johndozark
06-24-2012, 12:21 PM
This will probably happen because if the Pacers aren't able to get Nash or Deron Williams which is more than likely true, there aren't really any other clear upgrades at the position. It'll happen by default. Guys like Dragic, Lowry, etc. don't strike me as clear upgrades over George Hill.

I sort of agree with two of your points:

1. I like Hill as a capable 1-2 guard, one of the first players off the bench, and a valuable player to retain if possible.

2. I don't think that Lowry is an answer for us.

3. But, if you watch video of Dragic, he certainly offers dimensions that Hill does not, dimensions that I think would make everyone on the floor with him better.

Hicks
06-24-2012, 12:51 PM
Even though I wouldn't view Dragic or Lowry as a real upgrade at the PG spot, what I like about that is it theoretically allows you to bring back Hill to once again be the backup 2, as he was to start last season.

PR07
06-24-2012, 01:53 PM
I sort of agree with two of your points:

1. I like Hill as a capable 1-2 guard, one of the first players off the bench, and a valuable player to retain if possible.

2. I don't think that Lowry is an answer for us.

3. But, if you watch video of Dragic, he certainly offers dimensions that Hill does not, dimensions that I think would make everyone on the floor with him better.

Ideally, the role I'd like to see Hill in is the 6th man, combo guard off the bench at the 1 and 2. However, the team did play awfully well him at the helm late in the year, and it was only against the stifling defense of the Miami Heat that his shortcomings were exposed. I would not make a change simply for making a change.

Sure, Dragic would give us some elements that Hill doesn't like passing and running an effective fast break, but do those benefits outweigh what we'd lose? Namely three point shooting and defense among others. I could definitely say that for someone like Steve Nash, but I don't think I can say the same thing for someone like Dragic with certainty. I also really wouldn't want to pay both Hill AND Dragic 6-7 million per year, as while both are good players, neither one is truly elite.

McKeyFan
06-24-2012, 02:14 PM
This will probably happen because if the Pacers aren't able to get Nash or Deron Williams which is more than likely true, there aren't really any other clear upgrades at the position. It'll happen by default. Guys like Dragic, Lowry, etc. don't strike me as clear upgrades over George Hill.

Okay, then. Draft someone with the potential of becoming an upgrade in a couple of years. Are we going to be sitting around asking the same question in 2015?

Wage
06-24-2012, 02:45 PM
I personally do not feel that point guard is any more of a team weakness than any other position. I think our biggest weakness is that Paul George and Danny are an awful combination on the offensive side of the ball. Neither moves well without the ball, passes efficiently, sets decent screens, or penetrates with any sort of proficiency. They are both spot up shooters, and having both on the floor prevents much offensive flow, which makes our point guard play look worse than it actually is.

I feel one or the other needs to be moved for an upgrade at pretty much any of the starting positions. I think we have enough positional flexibility to alow us to upgrade at any of our starting 5 and fill in the pieces from there. I would be fine with DC running point and Hill taking over the 2 spot if PG or Granger net you an upgrade elsewhere.

D-BONE
06-24-2012, 03:11 PM
I personally do not feel that point guard is any more of a team weakness than any other position. I think our biggest weakness is that Paul George and Danny are an awful combination on the offensive side of the ball. Neither moves well without the ball, passes efficiently, sets decent screens, or penetrates with any sort of proficiency. They are both spot up shooters, and having both on the floor prevents much offensive flow, which makes our point guard play look worse than it actually is.

I feel one or the other needs to be moved for an upgrade at pretty much any of the starting positions. I think we have enough positional flexibility to alow us to upgrade at any of our starting 5 and fill in the pieces from there. I would be fine with DC running point and Hill taking over the 2 spot if PG or Granger net you an upgrade elsewhere.

I think your point is valid, and I could be persuaded to agree, but there is one significant issue. Do either Granger or George ensure we get a clear upgrade at whatever position in return? Probably not, but at least there's a chance to diversify the overall team skill set I suppose. At any rate, I am not against trading either of those two if it clearly makes our team better.

CableKC
06-24-2012, 03:58 PM
Even though I wouldn't view Dragic or Lowry as a real upgrade at the PG spot, what I like about that is it theoretically allows you to bring back Hill to once again be the backup 2, as he was to start last season.
Getting ANY Starting PG allows Vogel to play GH as the 1st Guard off the bench while filling both the backup PG and SG role. Having GH as the backup PG would allow us to go Big in the 2nd unit while allowing for Vogel to play either another FA Guard or Lance as the SG in the 2nd unit.

Bball
06-24-2012, 04:17 PM
Okay, then. Draft someone with the potential of becoming an upgrade in a couple of years. Are we going to be sitting around asking the same question in 2015?

Aren't we always?

PR07
06-24-2012, 06:05 PM
Okay, then. Draft someone with the potential of becoming an upgrade in a couple of years. Are we going to be sitting around asking the same question in 2015?

Easier said than done. Who's that player in this year's draft? Kendall Marshall? Meh.

presto123
06-24-2012, 06:40 PM
I personally do not feel that point guard is any more of a team weakness than any other position. I think our biggest weakness is that Paul George and Danny are an awful combination on the offensive side of the ball. Neither moves well without the ball, passes efficiently, sets decent screens, or penetrates with any sort of proficiency. They are both spot up shooters, and having both on the floor prevents much offensive flow, which makes our point guard play look worse than it actually is.

I feel one or the other needs to be moved for an upgrade at pretty much any of the starting positions. I think we have enough positional flexibility to alow us to upgrade at any of our starting 5 and fill in the pieces from there. I would be fine with DC running point and Hill taking over the 2 spot if PG or Granger net you an upgrade elsewhere.


Bingo! We need more guys who can penetrate and pass the ball. Basically just more athleticism on the team. Collison is about the only guy who can penetrate and he can't dish the ball all that well. We need some speed on this club and passing whether it is from a PG or a forward.

McKeyFan
06-24-2012, 07:11 PM
Easier said than done. Who's that player in this year's draft? Kendall Marshall? Meh.

Yeah, let's go with another Hansbrough type.

Wage
06-24-2012, 10:56 PM
I think your point is valid, and I could be persuaded to agree, but there is one significant issue. Do either Granger or George ensure we get a clear upgrade at whatever position in return? Probably not, but at least there's a chance to diversify the overall team skill set I suppose. At any rate, I am not against trading either of those two if it clearly makes our team better.

Honestly, I'm not sure. I am not a person that gets mad at my team's GM for not pulling off trades I made up, or some columnist made up. We really can't know what sort of offers are available behind closed doors. That said, however, I think it's pretty realistic to think that George and Granger have a fair amount of value. Does Hibbert + PG + pick get you into talks for Howard? Probably not, but it also likely doesen't get you hung up on instantly.

I love our guys, I just think we need to either consolidate some talent, or at least diversify some of the skillsets of our starters. And I don't think the point guard position stands way out above the rest as needing it the most.

PR07
06-25-2012, 01:03 AM
Yeah, let's go with another Hansbrough type.

I'm not saying don't take someone with high upside, Im just saying who's the great floor general in this year's class with such upside. I'm not seeing it.

Marshall's a nice passer, but he's not a great athlete and is nothing special in the shooting department.

MyFavMartin
06-25-2012, 08:56 AM
Okay, then. Draft someone with the potential of becoming an upgrade in a couple of years. Are we going to be sitting around asking the same question in 2015?

Marquis Teague. Let him develop under Hill/Collison. Go after Nash if possible.

Banta
06-25-2012, 09:05 AM
I personally do not feel that point guard is any more of a team weakness than any other position. I think our biggest weakness is that Paul George and Danny are an awful combination on the offensive side of the ball. Neither moves well without the ball, passes efficiently, sets decent screens, or penetrates with any sort of proficiency. They are both spot up shooters, and having both on the floor prevents much offensive flow, which makes our point guard play look worse than it actually is.

I feel one or the other needs to be moved for an upgrade at pretty much any of the starting positions. I think we have enough positional flexibility to alow us to upgrade at any of our starting 5 and fill in the pieces from there. I would be fine with DC running point and Hill taking over the 2 spot if PG or Granger net you an upgrade elsewhere.

I disagree about needing an upgrade at the point, but agree with your take on Paul and Danny. I am not nearly as high on Paul as seemingly the rest of PD is. I want him on the team, but I don't think he's going to develop into the offensive stud that so many other people do. They should let him be who he really is-- a defender and rebounder.

graphic-er
06-25-2012, 11:40 AM
Ideally, the role I'd like to see Hill in is the 6th man, combo guard off the bench at the 1 and 2. However, the team did play awfully well him at the helm late in the year, and it was only against the stifling defense of the Miami Heat that his shortcomings were exposed. I would not make a change simply for making a change.

Sure, Dragic would give us some elements that Hill doesn't like passing and running an effective fast break, but do those benefits outweigh what we'd lose? Namely three point shooting and defense among others. I could definitely say that for someone like Steve Nash, but I don't think I can say the same thing for someone like Dragic with certainty. I also really wouldn't want to pay both Hill AND Dragic 6-7 million per year, as while both are good players, neither one is truly elite.

But if they were Elite they would be paid 13 Million. So whats your gripe. Half price not good enough for you? LOL.

CreekShow
06-25-2012, 12:13 PM
Holiday and Ty Lawson are not "true" point guards either.

I beg to differ

PR07
06-25-2012, 12:22 PM
But if they were Elite they would be paid 13 Million. So whats your gripe. Half price not good enough for you? LOL.

No, but if you have Dragic and Hill both making 6-7 million, you could have ONE elite player for the price of that. It's the same problem that plagued the Pacers just a few seasons ago. They didn't have a ton of massive contracts, but what they had was a bunch of long-term contracts that were for 5-8 million annually for nothing more than average to above average players. Those deals add up. I don't want to repeat that at all.

If you only sign one of Dragic or Hill, you still aren't good enough at the point guard position in my mind. What we'd gain with Dragic's passing, we'd lose with Hill's defense and three point shooting.

Really?
06-25-2012, 12:37 PM
Getting tired of the true pg terminology, there are so many levels of pg play that for me it is getting hard to know what exactly you guys want, at the least that is.

Deron Williams, Nash to me are more than just true PG's, Rondo to me is a true PG but he excels at so many things other than what I believe a true pg has to have.

This gets back to my problem with Marshall, he has true point guard characteristics, but the rest of his game really lacks, there are very few guys I can think of that had this mentality and turned out pretty good in the league.

What exactly do you want your PG to do? and how would his skill set fit into the team that we have right now, also what would be the over/under on what we would lose with Hill to what we would gain with them?

Jrod Jones
06-25-2012, 01:13 PM
What exactly do you want your PG to do? and how would his skill set fit into the team that we have right now, also what would be the over/under on what we would lose with Hill to what we would gain with them?

My one issue with the status of our point guard position is that neither Hill or Collison are very good at feeding the post. Keeping one or the other (most realistically Hill) and then adding a 2nd point guard who can effectively work the ball in to Hibbert would VASTLY improve this offense. In my opinion, our biggest issue this season offensively was never ball movement or even lack of creativity; it was the fact that Roy averaged 10 shots a game and wasn't given an opportunity to take over the game frequently enough.

During the regular season there were 8 games in which Hibbert took 6 or less shots. He averaged 27.7 minutes a game in those games (only 2.1 less then his season average of 29.8mpg) so it wasn't due to lowered playing time from foul trouble or anything like that. It is unacceptable for arguably, I think so, our most important player to be getting so few looks! The Pacers were 18-4 in games where Hibbert scored 15+, a winning percentage that would have netted us 54 wins over the course of this shortened 66 game season, good for best record in the league by 4 wins. This team is just on a different level when the offense is effectively running through the post.

The one reason why I am interested in trading Collison and either drafting Marshall or signing Dragic/Lowry isn't because I think that any one of them possesses an overall skill level that is on such a higher level then Collison, but because I think any one of them would do a substantially better job of feeding the post.

Really?
06-25-2012, 01:24 PM
My one issue with the status of our point guard position is that neither Hill or Collison are very good at feeding the post. Keeping one or the other (most realistically Hill) and then adding a 2nd point guard who can effectively work the ball in to Hibbert would VASTLY improve this offense. In my opinion, our biggest issue this season offensively was never ball movement or even lack of creativity; it was the fact that Roy averaged 10 shots a game and wasn't given an opportunity to take over the game frequently enough.

During the regular season there were 8 games in which Hibbert took 6 or less shots. He averaged 27.7 minutes a game in those games (only 2.1 less then his season average of 29.8mpg) so it wasn't due to lowered playing time from foul trouble or anything like that. It is unacceptable for arguably, I think so, our most important player to be getting so few looks! The Pacers were 18-4 in games where Hibbert scored 15+, a winning percentage that would have netted us 54 wins over the course of this shortened 66 game season, good for best record in the league by 4 wins. This team is just on a different level when the offense is effectively running through the post.

The one reason why I am interested in trading Collison and either drafting Marshall or signing Dragic/Lowry isn't because I think that any one of them possesses an overall skill level that is on such a higher level then Collison, but because I think any one of them would do a substantially better job of feeding the post.

Understandable, I will just say 2 things, I like Drogic's overall game, but if we resign Hill which I believe we will do we have zero chance of bringing him in, and it probably would not be the most efficient signing we could do at the time. With Marshall I just feel we would be giving up way too much for what we are getting back, overall game that is.

Question do you feel if Hill worked on it this summer that he could become more efficient getting the ball down low to Hibbert? I also noticed that we had a hard time getting it down to Hibbert at times, but never really noticed the shot difference or how much it affected the games, thanks.

Jrod Jones
06-25-2012, 01:48 PM
Question do you feel if Hill worked on it this summer that he could become more efficient getting the ball down low to Hibbert?

I think he can, although I also think that it is the type of skill that some point guards are naturally better at then others. Not saying Hill can't improve enough to boost Hibbert's FGA numbers, but I don't know how much improvement he can make. Kendall Marshall spent this season working with a very large front court (Zeller, Henson, McAdoo, Barnes) and did an excellent job of reading the defense and making good entry passes into the post. Lowry and Dragic have some experience working with big guys like Scola and Camby (while Dragic also spent a bit of time working with Gortat and Robin Lopez in Phoenix) although none of them really match up that well with Hibbert in terms of offensive style.

So in a nutshell, I think yes. BUT I don't think he (or Collison for that matter) will be able to improve enough to completely cover this deficiency

Major Cold
06-25-2012, 02:41 PM
I don't care if Bird values a traditional PG or not. We just need a better PG, if we can get one.

The Heat struggled against Rondo, but he was slowed when Lebron was on him.

The Heat struggled against Westbrook, but with Harden and Durrant they couldn't afford it put him on Westbrook.

A PG like Westbrook should be welcomed by this team, even through he is not a traditional PG. Does a Rondo better fit us? Sure. But great traditional PGs are rare. Besides Nash, Rondo, and Chris Paul are there any other elite traditional point guards?

CableKC
06-25-2012, 03:42 PM
The Heat struggled against Rondo, but he was slowed when Lebron was on him.
If you put LeDecision on CP3 ( any Player for that matter ), I am guessing that you'd see the same result.

Having a SuperQuick, SuperStrong, SuperAthletic Linebacker defend you will slow any Player down.

Trader Joe
06-25-2012, 03:45 PM
Jrue Holiday is a true point guard? On what planet? Same could be said for Lawson really.

Major Cold
06-26-2012, 11:34 AM
If you put LeDecision on CP3 ( any Player for that matter ), I am guessing that you'd see the same result.

Having a SuperQuick, SuperStrong, SuperAthletic Linebacker defend you will slow any Player down.

My point is that when Lebron is on your PG, then you have to have wings to make them pay. The Celtics did not have that, but the Thunder did (Harden choked).

So if we have a traditional PG and our offense is dependent on him, then our wings would have to step up. And I don't think we are there yet.

All in all I do not think the PG is our number 1 priority.

Hicks
06-26-2012, 11:50 AM
Well, Pritchard seemed to love acquiring point guards in Portland.

Maybe Donnie Walsh will get us another 6'7+ guy to do it. ;)

Really?
06-26-2012, 01:17 PM
Well, Pritchard seemed to love acquiring point guards in Portland.

Maybe Donnie Walsh will get us another 6'7+ guy to do it. ;)

Tomas...

CJ Jones
06-26-2012, 09:34 PM
I disagree about needing an upgrade at the point, but agree with your take on Paul and Danny. I am not nearly as high on Paul as seemingly the rest of PD is. I want him on the team, but I don't think he's going to develop into the offensive stud that so many other people do. They should let him be who he really is-- a defender and rebounder.

We're not doing Paul any favors playing him out of position. Playing SF he could easily average close to 20 a game while grabbing 8-9 boards if he was given 36 minutes a night (which really isn't too much for young athlete like Paul). If we continue to play him against smaller quicker players, he'll to continue to struggle putting the ball on the floor and attacking the rim. And if we continue having him chase SGs around the perimeter, he'll never be the rebounder he could be. It's not that complicated.

Hopefully the new regime realizes this and makes a change. Either sell high or move Danny... or try Danny at the 4 :duck:


Getting tired of the true pg terminology, there are so many levels of pg play that for me it is getting hard to know what exactly you guys want, at the least that is.

Deron Williams, Nash to me are more than just true PG's, Rondo to me is a true PG but he excels at so many things other than what I believe a true pg has to have.

This gets back to my problem with Marshall, he has true point guard characteristics, but the rest of his game really lacks, there are very few guys I can think of that had this mentality and turned out pretty good in the league.

What exactly do you want your PG to do? and how would his skill set fit into the team that we have right now, also what would be the over/under on what we would lose with Hill to what we would gain with them?

If our wings could make plays off the dribble the PGs we have now would be fine. They're both good players. The way our rosters set up we need a ball dominant PG that can see the floor and distribute at a high level or a scoring PG that threatens the D enough that they can't help but leave open other players.

I think it'd be easier to do something about our wings personally.