Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

George Hill has had a disappointing year

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: George Hill has had a disappointing year

    Originally posted by Grimp View Post
    George Hill can shoot spot up 3 pointers that's about it. We need a point guard who can get past people and create off the dribble. That isn't George. Why would you call plays for a player who can't "take" his man whenever?
    I thought all you cared about was defense. George Hill is very good defender.
    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

    Comment


    • Re: George Hill has had a disappointing year

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      Idk why I'm responding with facts, but not even half of Hill's FG's are 3 pointers.

      I agree that he should be moved to the 2. But to suggest that he's ONLY a spot up 3 point shooter is absolutely false.
      I think George can do most anything on the court at an NBA level. That's impressive IMO. But with all of his abilities, why does he only average 12.0ppg in the prime of his career on a team that clearly isn't that great? Even CJ Miles is averaging 11.8ppg...and I would consider him clearly a backup.

      Yes, we are in the playoffs so we are not a cellar dweller, but for a guy who is probably our 2nd best player...yes, with his efficiency he is truly our #2, why is he not being featured well before these other clowns like CJ, Stuckey, Solomon and Monta?

      Seriously, I think with this group he should be getting far more plays called for him and you know I am no GHill apologist.

      Comment


      • Re: George Hill has had a disappointing year

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        I think George can do most anything on the court at an NBA level. That's impressive IMO. But with all of his abilities, why does he only average 12.0ppg in the prime of his career on a team that clearly isn't that great? Even CJ Miles is averaging 11.8ppg...and I would consider him clearly a backup.

        Yes, we are in the playoffs so we are not a cellar dweller, but for a guy who is probably our 2nd best player...yes, with his efficiency he is truly our #2, why is he not being featured well before these other clowns like CJ, Stuckey, Solomon and Monta?

        Seriously, I think with this group he should be getting far more plays called for him and you know I am no GHill apologist.
        I think a big part of it is the fact that guys like Monta, Miles, and Stuckey aren't really contributing unless they're scoring.

        Frank can't really try and put those guys in a position to do other things because their best assets are offensively.

        Hill on the other hand is versatile enough to be able to fill in some gaps. Unfortunately I think his best asset is his ability to make shots, and we aren't taking advantage of it as much as we probably could.

        I do think Vogel is trying to take advantage of it more by putting Hill strictly at the 2 now.
        Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 04-13-2016, 07:37 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: George Hill has had a disappointing year

          George Hill was a great PG for bigball and he would make a great SG for smallball.

          I think we need to re-sign Lawson and give Ellis and Stuckey the opportunity to improve in the offseason so that if necessary they can convince us who of those 2 should be our future sixth man. The way our guard rotation has worked out this season, I think they will be motivated...

          Comment


          • Re: George Hill has had a disappointing year

            Guys I'd like to see back: PG, Myles (givens) / Ian, Lawson, Solo (but uncertain which, if any, we can retain) / GHill (at his price point and potentially as a 6th man depending on what we bring in)

            Like to see two to three of these guys not retained for a variety of reasons: Monta, Stuck, CJ Miles

            Like to see at least one of these two replaced with a more dynamic, athletic, nasty - attitude big: Lavoy, JHill
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • Re: George Hill has had a disappointing year

              Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
              Guys I'd like to see back: PG, Myles (givens) / Ian, Lawson, Solo (but uncertain which, if any, we can retain) / GHill (at his price point and potentially as a 6th man depending on what we bring in)

              Like to see two to three of these guys not retained for a variety of reasons: Monta, Stuck, CJ Miles

              Like to see at least one of these two replaced with a more dynamic, athletic, nasty - attitude big: Lavoy, JHill
              I pretty much agree with this, except I don't think there is any way Solo will be back.

              Also instead of 2 or 3 of Stuckey, Miles and Monta moved, I would like to see either Stuckey or Monta moved. I don't care about Miles, he has a great contract and is good as a 9th or 10th man on the team. I like both Monta and Stuckey, but I just don't think there is room for both of them if we bring in a legitimate point guard...like we should.

              Comment


              • Re: George Hill has had a disappointing year

                Originally posted by MvPlumlee View Post
                George Hill was a great PG for bigball and he would make a great SG for smallball.

                I think we need to re-sign Lawson and give Ellis and Stuckey the opportunity to improve in the offseason so that if necessary they can convince us who of those 2 should be our future sixth man. The way our guard rotation has worked out this season, I think they will be motivated...
                I respect this view point on a Pacer board. But this is where I differ with the George Hill fan club. George isn't going to be a great player outside the NBDL. He's fits on a contender where others are the lead guys. I like George. But he's only solid. He is not great at anything in particular. He's talented but not extremely.

                Comment


                • Re: George Hill has had a disappointing year

                  Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                  Where did the idea of "George Hill is doing what Vogel tells him to do" come from? Honestly? Where does this argument get is basis from? Because I have never read anything where Vogel has said he wants GHill to play passively.
                  http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/hill-...s-another-role

                  Hill Finds and Fills Another Role

                  George Hill is a chameleon, able to adapt to nearly any role or environment. Point guard, shooting guard, combo guard, starter or reserve, he'll go along with it and probably do it well.

                  He found yet another role in the Pacers' 102-90 victory over New York on Tuesday, one in which he could flourish: running mate with the second unit.

                  Hill, the Pacers player most likely to be criticized by the fanbase, played a team-high 37 minutes and 19 seconds against the Knicks and finished with 19 points on 8-of-12 shooting. His defense was at least as good. There wasn't much for anyone to complain about after this one, and there were things to be intrigued by as well.

                  Although he scored 15 of his points when paired with Monta Ellis, 12 in the first seven minutes of the third quarter when the Pacers overcame New York's three-point halftime lead, he played all 12 minutes of the fourth quarter with the reserves. Ian Mahinmi was the only other starter to play in the final period, and that was just for 2 minutes, 43 seconds. Hill finished the game with Ty Lawson, Rodney Stuckey, Solomon Hill and Myles Turner, and while he only scored two points with that group, he offered a glimpse of what might be coming when the Pacers face Toronto in the playoffs.

                  The Pacers don't have two All-Star guards as the Raptors do, but they have a better bench. If George Hill is part of it, it's all that much deeper. Coach Frank Vogel only used nine players against the Knicks, which could be as deep as he'll go in the postseason, when most teams shrink their rotation.

                  If you're keeping score at home, it means Hill in the last few seasons has been a starting point guard who mostly stood in the corner after initiating an offense that ran through Paul George and Lance Stephenson (two and three seasons ago), a point guard who controlled the ball and had to score (last season), a hybrid guard who shared ballhandling duties with Ellis (early this season), a shooting guard with Ellis (late this season) and now a shooting guard with Lawson, too.

                  All in all, his role has fluctuated between running the offense and standing around waiting for a possible kick-out pass for a 3-pointer. Now he and Vogel are trying to find a happy medium.

                  "I've been talking to Coach about finding ways to get more involved in the offense instead of standing there a lot in the corner," Hill said. "He gave me opportunities to come out of that corner and try to make plays and just try to be aggressive."

                  Following an embarrassing 20-point loss to Orlando on March 31, Vogel promised changes. One of them was to put the ball in Ellis' hands more often and make Hill more of a traditional shooting guard. It brought more structure to the offense and took advantage of the fact Hill is the team's best 3-point shooter – a .408 percentage following Tuesday's game, in which he hit 3-of-5 attempts. This, from the guy who was the Pacers' primary playmaker last season, with an assist-to-turnover ratio better than 3-to-1.

                  "We just want him to be aggressive and play his game," Vogel said. "We don't want him to force. A lot of times if he's not putting up big numbers it's because I'm calling plays for Monta or Paul George or somebody else. He's one of the best guys I've ever coached for doing what the team needs. He does whatever's asked of him."

                  "Just a matter of being a professional," Hill said. "Sometimes you have roles and sometimes you can't control things. You have to do the best you can with what you can control. If they need you to do this or do that you've got to suck it up and do that for the betterment of the team. I'm not big on being upset about certain situations."

                  Hill's challenge is not to let his versatility morph into passivity. It's one thing to be adaptable, another to be too self-sacrificing. His teammates and Vogel remind him of that now and then.

                  "We all have to be annoying to him," George said. "We have to be a bug in his ear, constantly chipping way at him. He has so much talent not being used. It's on us to get on him to come out and play his game.

                  "George is calm and collected. Sometimes he feels there's enough guys around him who can do the job. So it's on us to nudge him and tell him he can do the same thing we're doing."

                  Lawson gives the most meaningful nudge, by his style of play. The Houston Rockets castoff further ingrained himself with the Pacers on Tuesday, finishing with nine points and eight assists off the bench. That followed a seven-point, nine-assist game against Brooklyn on Sunday. He now has 51 assists and 10 turnovers in his 12 games with the Pacers, and has brought new life to the bench.

                  "It's fun," Hill said of playing with Lawson. "You space the floor a little bit ... he's done a great job his whole career of getting in gaps and looking for weakside and drawing a lot of attention. It's great to play with him; you're going to get a lot of open looks."

                  That's something Rodney Stuckey, who scored 10 points on Tuesday, can appreciate as well.

                  "He makes the ball movement a lot better," Stuckey said of Lawson. "He pushes the ball and the tempo of the game is faster. That's what Frank wants to emphasize with the second unit. Push the ball up the court, lot of random basketball, lot of (trailers) ... that's what Ty brings to the table."

                  Lawson is loving life again. Houston traded for him last summer and then tried to use him as an off-guard with James Harden. Lawson doesn't have George Hill-like versatility, however. He's a point guard, and nothing more or less. He's got the ball back in his hands now, but can take advantage of playing with Hill and Stuckey, who will return the favor now and then and find him for open shots. He hit a 3-pointer late in Tuesday's game off an assist from Stuckey, who had four of them without a turnover.

                  "We all can handle the ball, we all can get in the paint and find the open man and play the game the right way," Lawson said. "I've never gotten wide open shots like that standing in the corner. It felt good."

                  Hill knows the feeling.
                  You can also read my post from after the Knick game yesterday that contained Vogel's entire quote about Hill and him doing what he's been told in terms of his role. Provides some nice insight.

                  Comment


                  • Re: George Hill has had a disappointing year

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    I respect this view point on a Pacer board. But this is where I differ with the George Hill fan club. George isn't going to be a great player outside the NBDL. He's fits on a contender where others are the lead guys. I like George. But he's only solid. He is not great at anything in particular. He's talented but not extremely.
                    And what is wrong with that ?? You're not going to find a team with 5 or 6 All Stars on it. Every team needs guys that know - and more importantly, accept - their role.

                    Or do you just take every chance you get to try to knock the guy down a little ??

                    Comment


                    • Re: George Hill has had a disappointing year

                      Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                      George Hill can shoot spot up 3 pointers that's about it. We need a point guard who can get past people and create off the dribble. That isn't George. Why would you call plays for a player who can't "take" his man whenever?
                      I agree I've been saying for many years that George Hill needs to start taking his man for nice seafood dinners and stop being such a cheap date!


                      wait, what are we talking about again?


                      Comment


                      • Re: George Hill has had a disappointing year

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        I think George can do most anything on the court at an NBA level. That's impressive IMO. But with all of his abilities, why does he only average 12.0ppg in the prime of his career on a team that clearly isn't that great? Even CJ Miles is averaging 11.8ppg...and I would consider him clearly a backup.

                        Yes, we are in the playoffs so we are not a cellar dweller, but for a guy who is probably our 2nd best player...yes, with his efficiency he is truly our #2, why is he not being featured well before these other clowns like CJ, Stuckey, Solomon and Monta?

                        Seriously, I think with this group he should be getting far more plays called for him and you know I am no GHill apologist.
                        I think we've seen him be relegated for a while behind Monta. The first 25 games Monta was taking less shots then basically from Mid December til the end of March (go back to my post in Mid January where I illustrated this point and also pointed out how it coincidentally (or not) was the turning point for this Pacers team).

                        Recently, Monta has been featured more as a passer. This is the only path to success IMO that does not involve Monta being sent to the bench. However, I still think it should be the ultimate goal for this team that Monta is sent to the bench. It is bizarre to me that this team has a losing record in games where Monta shoots more than 10 times AND in games where GHill shoots more than 10 times. To me it suggests that those two just do not work as a starting backcourt TOGETHER.

                        Interestingly enough, the guy who has the most impact positively when shooting over 10 times a game? CJ Miles, the Pacers are 19-12 when he attempts over 10 shots a game. Now this doesn't necessarily show how important CJ himself is, but it does show the value of another taller guy (6'7") in this Pacers lineup who can shoots 3's.
                        Last edited by Trader Joe; 04-13-2016, 01:09 PM.


                        Comment


                        • Re: George Hill has had a disappointing year

                          Originally posted by MvPlumlee View Post
                          George Hill was a great PG for bigball and he would make a great SG for smallball.

                          I think we need to re-sign Lawson and give Ellis and Stuckey the opportunity to improve in the offseason so that if necessary they can convince us who of those 2 should be our future sixth man. The way our guard rotation has worked out this season, I think they will be motivated...
                          Or just trade Stuckey for a comparable contract. Swap a bench piece for bench piece with another team but get a guy who doesn't mimic Monta's skill set. I would much rather (assuming a better point guard option doesn't present itself), re-sign Lawson, start him and George Hill, try to find the right power forward/small ball 4 guy and then have Monta coming off the bench with CJ Miles.


                          I will be pissed if we trade George Hill this offseason and do not get strong return.


                          Comment


                          • Re: George Hill has had a disappointing year

                            Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                            I thought all you cared about was defense. George Hill is very good defender.
                            He actually gets torched by point guards regularly now. He was solid defensively 2 seasons ago but now? Even that's on the decline.

                            Comment


                            • Re: George Hill has had a disappointing year

                              Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                              He actually gets torched by point guards regularly now. He was solid defensively 2 seasons ago but now? Even that's on the decline.
                              Please provide #s that back up the notion that GH is getting "regularly torched" over the last 2 seasons. Regularly getting torched by PGs now implies that GH is utterly useless on the defensive end because opposing PGs just score at will over the last 2 seasons.

                              Keep in mind that GH isn't always guarding the opposing Starting PG.....there are often switches where Monta or Stuckey is guarding the opposing PG that is on the floor. I'm not suggesting that he's an elite perimeter PG defender.....but GH is BY FAR the best perimeter defending Guard ( behind the likes of PG13 and Solo ) on this roster compared to Monta, Stuckey and Buckets ( I have no clue how good of a perimeter defender that Lawson is ).
                              Last edited by CableKC; 04-13-2016, 03:36 PM.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • Re: George Hill has had a disappointing year

                                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                                You can also read my post from after the Knick game yesterday that contained Vogel's entire quote about Hill and him doing what he's been told in terms of his role. Provides some nice insight.
                                So wait, Ghill said something about getting more touches and being a bigger role in the offense like I was calling for him to do????

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X