PDA

View Full Version : Is it time to put Hill at the 2?



Hicks
11-16-2012, 12:35 PM
This is all assuming we won't make trades or change coaches.

Look, I wanted to believe in the idea that Frank had for this season to make Hill a point guard all day, every day, in hopes that he might evolve and become (in my eyes) a more Billups-esque PG (meaning someone who was seen as a SG become a big, scoring point guard who learned to run a team).

But circumstances (Danny being out 3 months, these terrible early games) seem to dictate that this should be abandoned because we desperately need a shot in the arm, and one of the ways to maybe do that is to play to our immediate, short term strengths.

This isn't a perfect solution for a few reasons, but I think I would like to see us give this lineup an extended try:

Augustin, Hill, George, West, Hibbert.

What I like about it:

1. I think it could wake DJ up and make him more comfortable, which adds something we currently don't have while he's a zombie off the bench.
2. It allows Hill to play where he's most comfortable and in turn he should start playing more instinctively and not have to think too much.

What I'm am ambivalent about:

1. Moving Paul to the 3 could help or hurt. It should give him a speed advantage over his opponent, theoretically making it easier for him to dribble drive, but at the same time they will be bigger and stronger and he may not be physically capable of dealing with that full time.
2. This may or may not provide three shooters to help space the defense for West and Roy.
3. DJ Augustin is someone who's already been a starting point guard for several years (including a stretch under the coaching of Larry Brown) might be healthy for our 5-man unit in terms of having a better feel for pacing, running/calling plays, etc. He might serve as a straw to stir the drink better than Hill has been doing.

What I'm concerned about:

1. DJ plays bad defense.
2. This asks either Lance or Ben to play serious minutes at point guard with our already sucky bench.
3. This might mean more Sam Young.

Think it's worth trying? No? Yes?

Unclebuck
11-16-2012, 12:36 PM
Sure, but then we need to acquire a better point guard than Augustin

RWB
11-16-2012, 12:41 PM
Yes I like the idea.

LetsTalkPacers84
11-16-2012, 12:41 PM
Sure, but then we need to acquire a better point guard than Augustin

Lance:D

BillS
11-16-2012, 12:43 PM
http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/2012/11/15/pacers-should-hill-slide-should-to-shooting-guard/

Wells thinks it is worth trying.

Eleazar
11-16-2012, 12:50 PM
I would rather stay with Lance and Hill, but give Lance more time in the point situation.

kielbeze
11-16-2012, 12:50 PM
I have been saying this. I would however start lance at point.
He is a heck of a lot better on d than D.J. and I think G3 gets more open looks.
Also Lance can attack the basket and kick it back out to an open PG or G3. I am for one not a big D.J. fan at the moment. He still has time though to earn some trust.

Aw Heck
11-16-2012, 12:52 PM
Sure, why not. The team certainly can't play any worse. At this point, I'd be fine with him playing center if it meant that the Pacers would win games.

ejwallace
11-16-2012, 01:09 PM
I have been clamoring for more of a role for DJ since we acquired him....Hell I was asking to bring him in last season....The man can play, there is no doubt about that in my mind....His defense is week, but he can facilitate for others....Get him back in the game and bring him out of this slump by letting him run with the starters....Honestly, at this point, it can't get any worse....

Trophy
11-16-2012, 01:10 PM
I was thinking Vogel would go with that here and there. Especially at this point with Danny out. GH is a good PG, but not a pure one. He racks up assists, but doesn't create much for others.

It's definitely worth a shot if push comes to shove. Augustin has been invisible so far.

greyhound80
11-16-2012, 01:25 PM
We need to acquire A POINT GUARD. We don't have an NBA starting quality one on our roster.

McKeyFan
11-16-2012, 01:32 PM
I appreciate your theory as a way to make a change up to make something happen.

However, I agree with several others on here that the obvious first solution to try is give Lance more control of the offense. He is still viewed as a bit of a fifth wheel, even though he has our best percentages, makes the best passes, loosens up the defense best by far of any player, and has a knack for scoring.

He clearly has not been given a green light to run the offense for any amount of time. He needs to be allowed to make about five mistakes or so in a game before quitting the experiment. He needs to KNOW he will have five mistakes to make while he attempts to rev up the offense.

If that has been honestly tried and clearly failed, then I'm open to your DJ theory—even though his defense sucks and he has not shown himself worthy of the promotion.

Brad8888
11-16-2012, 01:35 PM
That is the exact lineup that I thought the Pacers should go with when Danny's injury was announced.

Offense requires passing, and a point guard who facilitates for others and finds players either in scoring position or in a position to immediately find the scorer with an entry pass more quickly than the defense is able to rotate.

This lineup is the closest the Pacers have to that, and I think it is worth the downgrade defensively to not rely on Hill as a point guard offensively. He is too used to looking to score as a two to be reliable in finding others, and that is understandable.

Of course, that would also require a change in offensive philosophy on the part of the coaching staff as well, but I think they can adapt to this reality.

ejwallace
11-16-2012, 02:23 PM
The problem that I see with running Lance at the 1 with George at the 2 is that both of these players are our best option at scoring from outside. You will see the same issue putting Lance at the 1 that you see with Hill at the 1...Lack of scoring, plus you take your scoring umph away from the second team.... With DJ, you know he can distribute, not so much a scorer, so putting him at the 1 really doesn't effect your ability to put up points by taking away a scorer....

Ace E.Anderson
11-16-2012, 02:40 PM
Though I can see what you're saying, we would be very bad defensively. We would have 3 below average defenders within our starting lineup (I'm including Hibbert who can block shots, but is horrid in pick and roll defense) and the benefit in offense wouldn't make up for the negatives defensively, IMO.

Everyone talks bout a PG that can distribute to others, but as Mike Brown has shown, it doesn't matter who your PG is if your offensive system isn't conducive to a PG. So unless we are implementing a new offensive strategy, the PG position isn't going to make much of a difference.

Edit: now if we start Ian nd move Roy to the bench, I think we'd potentially be able to get through it. But that'd only help this season. Hill will be best served as a PG moving forward, you can't complain about him being a PG if you're not going to let him concentrate on playing it.

threein73
11-16-2012, 02:40 PM
Maybe Dallas will trade us DC for Mahinmi, we'll even let them keep Dahntay!

MvPlumlee
11-16-2012, 02:42 PM
If our offense doesn't start to click tonight, that is definitely something I would consider doing.

I don't know about Hibbert setting and defending screens with Augustin though. He is just so vulnerable and useless on the perimeter.

Start Mahinmi until he gets two fouls or Hibbert has found his mojo back!

ChicagoJ
11-16-2012, 02:44 PM
Maybe Dallas will trade us DC for Mahinmi, we'll even let them keep Dahntay!

LOL.

That would be nice.

ChicagoJ
11-16-2012, 02:44 PM
I'm not opposed to moving Hill to SG. Maybe we could trade Paul George for a starting caliber point guard? I don't think Augustine will be the answer.

Sookie
11-16-2012, 02:46 PM
Sure, but then we need to acquire a better point guard than Augustin

At this point, might as well try Ben...

MvPlumlee
11-16-2012, 02:55 PM
I'm not opposed to moving Hill to SG. Maybe we could trade Paul George for a starting caliber point guard? I don't think Augustine will be the answer.

I'm 100% sure Augustine isn't the answer.

Augustin perhaps...

It's mind boggling how many write his name wrong.

vnzla81
11-16-2012, 03:00 PM
That won't fix the issues the Pacers have, is not like they are going to change how they run the simple offense either.

LG33
11-16-2012, 03:48 PM
I'd hate to reward Augustin with a starting spot despite a severe lack of effort and interest as the backup, but anything to shake up this group is worth trying. My main concern is that the offensive sets won't work any smoother with Augustin than they do with Hill, but that remains to be seen. Wouldn't mind seeing Orlando Johnson get a couple minutes either. Now granted, the guy couldn't hit a thing in summer league or preseason, but why not, right?


I'm 100% sure Augustine isn't the answer.

Augustin perhaps...

It's mind boggling how many write his name wrong.

To be fair, Augustine (as in St. Augustine) is a much more common spelling. I've seen Gerald Green getting an extra "e" too, and it certainly isn't for extra effort. I think we can blame Orien Greene for that one.

MagicRat
11-16-2012, 04:03 PM
Sure, but then we need to acquire a better point guard than Augustin

The backup PG for the Jazz dealt 14 assists in a start the other night. I wonder if he's available......

pacerDU
11-16-2012, 04:03 PM
I've always felt a little uncomfortable with GH being our point-guard, primarily because I just don't think he is one. I really see him as a Jason Terry type of guy - a sixth man, combo-guard who can play spot-minutes at point, but is more of a scorer.

Since Mark Jackson left, we really haven't had a true point guard. Tinsley was/is, but we all know what happened there. TJ, DC and Hill aren't traditional PGs either. What we need is a true facilitator. I'd be willing to try the line-up you propose, moving Hill to the 2, PG to the 3 and sliding Augustin to the starting 1 spot. I'm not saying he's the answer there, but moving him to the 1 might light a fire under his *** and would move Hill to a more natural role for him.

Justin Tyme
11-16-2012, 04:30 PM
Sure, but then we need to acquire a better point guard than Augustin


Acquiring a better PG than anyone on the Pacers roster should be a PRIORITY! This has been a need for years that has never been fixed.

Justin Tyme
11-16-2012, 04:38 PM
I think we can blame Orien Greene for that one.


You can blame Walsh wanting a big PG for Orien Greene.

ChicagoJ
11-16-2012, 05:00 PM
The backup PG for the Jazz dealt 14 assists in a start the other night. I wonder if he's available......

:love:

(Too soon? Is somebody going to kill us both?)

ChicagoJ
11-16-2012, 05:02 PM
I'm 100% sure Augustine isn't the answer.

Augustin perhaps...

It's mind boggling how many write his name wrong.

Ooops.


Maybe if he proves to be worth a damn then I'll figure out how to spell his name. Until then, close enough. :devil:

McKeyFan
11-16-2012, 05:17 PM
Ooops.



That's "oops."

NapTonius Monk
11-16-2012, 05:20 PM
At this point, might as well try Ben...
BENSANITY!!! BRING IT!

McKeyFan
11-16-2012, 05:47 PM
Pretty sad when our only hope is a poor man's Tyler.

BillS
11-16-2012, 05:54 PM
Pretty sad when our only hope is a poor man's Tyler.

:confused: That makes no sense on any number of levels.

xIndyFan
11-16-2012, 06:30 PM
Put me in the not a good idea group. DJ has been the worst player in the rotation. Ben Hansbrough really isn't a PG. Shuffling the rotation so they get more playing time just doesn't make sense to me.

Put me in the play Lance and Hill together more group. They both seem able to play the 1 or 2 and switch back and forth as needed. That seems more of a long term solution. If DJ is not playing well enough by January, Ben can be released or DJ can be traded to free up an extra roster spot for a new PG. or if Lance is playing well enough, let him be the backup 2.

Right now DJ is not playing well, not shooting well and cannot defend at all. It just doesn't seem an idea that will make the team better.

GeniusJMG
11-16-2012, 07:01 PM
How about Paul George and Tyler Hansbrough plus 2 future first rounders for John Wall?

BlueCollarColts
11-16-2012, 07:15 PM
How about Paul George and Tyler Hansbrough plus 2 future first rounders for John Wall?
SOUNDS GREAT TO ME!!!!!!!!!! :), but Washington would decline that pretty quickly........ Wall, Hill, Granger, West, and Hibbert could be a deadly line-up come play-off time

GeniusJMG
11-16-2012, 07:33 PM
SOUNDS GREAT TO ME!!!!!!!!!! :), but Washington would decline that pretty quickly........ Wall, Hill, Granger, West, and Hibbert could be a deadly line-up come play-off timeI can dream can't I? Hah.

Eleazar
11-16-2012, 07:45 PM
I think it is best to consider both Lance and Hill as just guards, not SG or PG.

diamonddave00
11-16-2012, 07:47 PM
Yeah lets trade George , Hansbrough and 2 - #1's for a guard who isn't playing because of knee surgery, NOT !!! who shoots 41% from the field and 24% from 3 point range. His 7% from 3 point range was impressive last season. Latest report is he COULD be back in 6 weeks. Sorry I have no interest in a volumn shot scorer who's game is based on speed coming off patella knee surgery. Expecially at the cost you want to give up.

GeniusJMG
11-16-2012, 08:05 PM
Yeah lets trade George , Hansbrough and 2 - #1's for a guard who isn't playing because of knee surgery, NOT !!! who shoots 41% from the field and 24% from 3 point range. His 7% from 3 point range was impressive last season. Latest report is he COULD be back in 6 weeks. Sorry I have no interest in a volumn shot scorer who's game is based on speed coming off patella knee surgery. Expecially at the cost you want to give up.

Um, you know nothing about John Wall. He is not a scorer first PG. He is a true point guard who doesn't play well on a team where he is the main scorer. He would be 20x better for us and i'm willing to wait to get him and he will be healthy soon.

D-BONE
11-16-2012, 08:10 PM
Sure, but then we need to acquire a better point guard than Augustin

We need to acquire a PG period. Hill is not one and the other two are not good enough to even be mediocre back ups. Really surprised Sundiata Gaines didn't make this roster.

xIndyFan
11-16-2012, 08:58 PM
huh, I thought dimonddave was right. One of the things I thought was true about Wall is that he is more athlete than PG. Trading Paul, Tyler and a couple of #1's seems way too much, at least IMO.


Yeah lets trade George , Hansbrough and 2 - #1's for a guard who isn't playing because of knee surgery, NOT !!! who shoots 41% from the field and 24% from 3 point range. His 7% from 3 point range was impressive last season. Latest report is he COULD be back in 6 weeks. Sorry I have no interest in a volume shot scorer who's game is based on speed coming off patella knee surgery. Especially at the cost you want to give up.


Um, you know nothing about John Wall. He is not a scorer first PG. He is a true point guard who doesn't play well on a team where he is the main scorer. He would be 20x better for us and i'm willing to wait to get him and he will be healthy soon.

diamonddave00
11-16-2012, 09:25 PM
John Wall takes 18 shots per 48 minutes not exactly a pass first point. While he does average 8 assist per game he also averages 4 turnovers per. Paul George + 2 #1's and T. Hansbrough is far too much to give up.

Ace E.Anderson
11-16-2012, 09:33 PM
Hill looks pretty good as a PG this game.

cinotimz
11-16-2012, 10:02 PM
Based on how Augustin has played this year I think we need to be looking for ways for him to play less, not more...

cdash
11-16-2012, 10:13 PM
I think Hill is more of a 2 than a 1, but if that means starting DJ Augustin, I am not signing off on that noise.

And Lance Stephenson is even more of a 2 than a 1, so I am good with the current arrangement.

tomkat1971
11-17-2012, 01:30 AM
Not a big DC fan but we could sure use him at the point. None of our PGs are playing worth, well you know the four letter word Im thinking of. The offense starts with the PG and without one we are going to flounder. I'm a big fan of Hill but I think even he would tell you that he is better at the 2 than the point. Besides that, the loss of Granger as our outside threat, is also hurting our offense. I'm surprised that Paul George hasn't picked up any of the slack there. So let me see, we don't have a point guard or an outside shooter. Is it any wonder then that we are losing????

Sparhawk
11-17-2012, 09:09 AM
Lance has been the Pacers most efficient scorer. How does Vogel not draw up more plays for him? If Lance can keep scoring efficiently, he's going to garner more attention and PG and Hibbs will get less, so then maybe those two will play better if defenses are focusing on them so much.

Free Lance more!

Pacer Fan
11-17-2012, 10:40 AM
I think Hill and Lance can share the 1 & 2 spot while on the floor together. Just adds another dynamic for opposing teams defenses to try and adjust to.

3rdStrike
11-17-2012, 10:53 AM
Lance has been the Pacers most efficient scorer. How does Vogel not draw up more plays for him? If Lance can keep scoring efficiently, he's going to garner more attention and PG and Hibbs will get less, so then maybe those two will play better if defenses are focusing on them so much.

Free Lance more!

As long as he's starting, I think he's better off getting only a few plays per game and otherwise being the last option for scoring. Not because he can't score, but because he's the guy you want taking the shot with 3 seconds left on the clock after the play fell apart. He can finish and he's got what a certain First Take personality refers to as "clutch gene." So does George Hill, but we need them both to help the other starters score. The way the season's going, if Lance averages about 30 mpg I'd expect he and Hill to have similar stats: around 12-14 ppg and 5 apg with good rebounding numbers. And if Paul George and Roy Hibbert manage to get out of their slumps, the assist numbers could go up.

BlueCollarColts
11-17-2012, 11:00 AM
after Hill's game last night, 15 pts, 7 assists we need to let him play PG