Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Member A.B.Hollywood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Champaign, IL
    Posts
    314

    Default No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    but we are better with more Paul George.

    I think these last couple games are showing us what Paul can do when empowered and given more opportunities and George Hill is the primary man who eats into that within our current rotation.

    So while no, I am not advocating less George Hill necessarily but I am advocating more Paul George. Likely this is at the expense of Collison but then again he also is having a nice stretch here as well.

    So how do we better make this happen? Good question. And also what a good problem to have.

    #1stworldpacerproblems
    I don't want to sound condescending, which means to talk down to you by the way

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to A.B.Hollywood For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Since 1984 1984's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,821

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    The only Pacer who is struggling? Tyler Hansbrough. Every major rotational player is playing at the top of their game, and it is amazing.


  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 1984 For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    #RiseOfTheKing imbtyler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Nashville, IN
    Posts
    1,631
    Mood

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    Quote Originally Posted by A.B.Hollywood View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    but we are better with more Paul George.

    I think these last couple games are showing us what Paul can do when empowered and given more opportunities and George Hill is the primary man who eats into that within our current rotation.

    So while no, I am not advocating less George Hill necessarily but I am advocating more Paul George. Likely this is at the expense of Collison but then again he also is having a nice stretch here as well.

    So how do we better make this happen? Good question. And also what a good problem to have.

    #1stworldpacerproblems
    Psh. I had this solved long ago. Remove the Inferno, replace his backup SF minutes with Paul. Unfortunately, it will wear down PG like a mo****a (I'm kinda worried about his fatigue for the Magic game), but with nights like these... You never know.

    Also, if he remains consistent (knock on wood), replacing Granger with a greater, more valuable asset might not look like a bad idea after all. Not saying we do get rid of him, he's very talented. But he's no Batman. Or maybe he is. He doesn't have a superpower, he just kind of works with what he has or the shots he can make.

    Paul George is the (Blue and) Gold Lantern. He performs whatever he can imagine. /nerdcore

    Anyway, great game by George. I couldn't be more proud. I didn't put on my jersey until after the game, so I may have to change my superstitions. Also, give him as many minutes as he can handle, and get Dahntay out of there. That's my point.
    witters: @imbtyler, @postgameonline

    Quote Originally Posted by Day-V View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In conclusion, Paul George is awesome.
    Quote Originally Posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Our arena, their arena, Rucker park, it just doesn't matter. We're bigger, longer, younger, faster, and hungrier.



  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to imbtyler For This Useful Post:


  7. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Franklin
    Posts
    415
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    Quote Originally Posted by imbtyler View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Psh. I had this solved long ago. Remove the Inferno, replace his backup SF minutes with Paul. Unfortunately, it will wear down PG like a mo****a (I'm kinda worried about his fatigue for the Magic game), but with nights like these... You never know.

    Also, if he remains consistent (knock on wood), replacing Granger with a greater, more valuable asset might not look like a bad idea after all. Not saying we do get rid of him, he's very talented. But he's no Batman. Or maybe he is. He doesn't have a superpower, he just kind of works with what he has or the shots he can make.

    Paul George is the (Blue and) Gold Lantern. He performs whatever he can imagine. /nerdcore

    Anyway, great game by George. I couldn't be more proud. I didn't put on my jersey until after the game, so I may have to change my superstitions. Also, give him as many minutes as he can handle, and get Dahntay out of there. That's my point.
    Dahntay is playing great of this bench. Inferno has been tamed this season. I liked your nerd references.

    Anywho, I really think we are gelling better without Hill. I'm not quite sure what it is. Maybe it's his attitude? He seems to have a bit of a selfish attitude from what I've gathered(asking for 7.5, complaining about indy, his general composure on the floor). Seems like a tad bit of a debbie downer on a very eccentric pacer's team. Obviously this is quite a stretch, but you could attempt to make a case for it.

  8. #5
    Administrator Peck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,762

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    Quote Originally Posted by imbtyler View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Psh. I had this solved long ago. Remove the Inferno, replace his backup SF minutes with Paul. Unfortunately, it will wear down PG like a mo****a (I'm kinda worried about his fatigue for the Magic game), but with nights like these... You never know.

    Also, if he remains consistent (knock on wood), replacing Granger with a greater, more valuable asset might not look like a bad idea after all. Not saying we do get rid of him, he's very talented. But he's no Batman. Or maybe he is. He doesn't have a superpower, he just kind of works with what he has or the shots he can make.

    Paul George is the (Blue and) Gold Lantern. He performs whatever he can imagine. /nerdcore

    Anyway, great game by George. I couldn't be more proud. I didn't put on my jersey until after the game, so I may have to change my superstitions. Also, give him as many minutes as he can handle, and get Dahntay out of there. That's my point.
    Dude, seriously????

    On a team that is 16-6 your advocating making changes just so one player can get more burn?

    How about we all just enjoy what we have and try to understand that what we have is special. The only thing better than Granger is going to be a player on the next tier up and you aren't getting any of those players. So how about instead of trying to move Paul over to the three we just play Danny and Paul together for a dynamic wing duo.

    Also Dahntay has been playing great and he already plays limited min.

    Did you forget that just the game before Danny scored 36 and didn't even shoot the ball in the last 3 min of the game or he could have easily had 40.

    Why can't we just enjoy both? I've never seen anything but love and respect by either player directed at the other and I think they have a big brother little brother thing going. When Danny was going crazy the other night Paul was cheering him on from the bench (remeber he was in foul trouble) and tonight when Paul was going Danny was the first to hit him up after his trailing three.

    There doesn't have to be a war of players or thier fans, it's all for the betterment of the team. Which right now is playing better than anyone in the NBA.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  9. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Peck For This Useful Post:

    + Show/Hide list of the thanked


  10. #6
    Member spazzxb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    fort wayne In
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,826

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    Quote Originally Posted by Peck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Dude, seriously????

    On a team that is 16-6 your advocating making changes just so one player can get more burn?

    How about we all just enjoy what we have and try to understand that what we have is special. The only thing better than Granger is going to be a player on the next tier up and you aren't getting any of those players. So how about instead of trying to move Paul over to the three we just play Danny and Pual together for a dynamic wing duo.

    Also Dahntay has been playing great and he already plays limited min.

    Did you forget that just the game before Danny scored 36 and didn't even shoot the ball in the last 3 min of the game or he could have easily had 40.

    Why can't we just enjoy both? I've never seen anything but love and respect by either player directed at the other and I think they have a big brother little brother thing going. When Danny was going crazy the other night Paul was cheering him on from the bench (remeber he was in foul trouble) and tonight when Paul was going Danny was the first to hit him up after his trailing three.

    There doesn't have to be a war of players or thier fans, it's all for the betterment of the team. Which right now is playing better than anyone in the NBA.
    I would still like to see one of the two(DG,PG) on the court at all times.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to spazzxb For This Useful Post:


  12. #7
    Administrator Peck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,762

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    Quote Originally Posted by spazzxb View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I would still like to see one of the two(DG,PG) on the court at all times.
    Now that I agree with.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  13. #8

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    Quote Originally Posted by spazzxb View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I would still like to see one of the two(DG,PG) on the court at all times.
    They made that rotational switch two games ago so it's already happening.

  14. #9
    thx4tehmRys Danny! daschysta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geist, Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,953
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    Quote Originally Posted by imbtyler View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Psh. I had this solved long ago. Remove the Inferno, replace his backup SF minutes with Paul. Unfortunately, it will wear down PG like a mo****a (I'm kinda worried about his fatigue for the Magic game), but with nights like these... You never know.

    Also, if he remains consistent (knock on wood), replacing Granger with a greater, more valuable asset might not look like a bad idea after all. Not saying we do get rid of him, he's very talented. But he's no Batman. Or maybe he is. He doesn't have a superpower, he just kind of works with what he has or the shots he can make.

    Paul George is the (Blue and) Gold Lantern. He performs whatever he can imagine. /nerdcore

    Anyway, great game by George. I couldn't be more proud. I didn't put on my jersey until after the game, so I may have to change my superstitions. Also, give him as many minutes as he can handle, and get Dahntay out of there. That's my point.
    There is no merit to this as Paul George is playing just fine at SG, better than fine in fact. His length is a better asset at that position than it would be at the 3 until he gets stronger anyhow.

  15. #10
    Indiana Pacers Forever Pacer Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    ya
    Posts
    3,871
    Mood

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    The starters played playoff minutes against Dallas. This can't continue in every season game. We need Hill in a big way and if anything him being out has shown how bad our bench truly is. I am crossing my fingers that he will be back really really soon.

  16. #11
    Indiana Pacers Forever Pacer Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    ya
    Posts
    3,871
    Mood

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    I don't agree that Danny or Paul needs to be on the floor at all times. Pacers shown last night what happens to opposing defenses when they are both on the floor together along with the other starters. We just simply need a better bench to maintain quality play while our starters are getting rest.

    Lance and AJ just can't get the job done. We need a quality 1 or 2 to come off the bench with Hill and Jones. I don't really care which position, just the best possible player a trade and picks can buy.

    If the player gives up a little defense, I'm ok with that if they can score consistently. The presence of the team will influence the new player to tighten up their defense. (hence Morrow). I do think that the PG and S position may offer more choices in possible available
    players.

    Just some players I wouldn't mind having in no particular order. I'm sure I've missed some goody's.

    PG
    Farmar
    Sessions
    Jack

    SG
    Morrow
    Barbosa
    Lee

  17. #12

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacer Fan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't agree that Danny or Paul needs to be on the floor at all times. Pacers shown last night what happens to opposing defenses when they are both on the floor together along with the other starters. We just simply need a better bench to maintain quality play while our starters are getting rest.

    Lance and AJ just can't get the job done. We need a quality 1 or 2 to come off the bench with Hill and Jones. I don't really care which position, just the best possible player a trade and picks can buy.

    If the player gives up a little defense, I'm ok with that if they can score consistently. The presence of the team will influence the new player to tighten up their defense. (hence Morrow). I do think that the PG and S position may offer more choices in possible available
    players.

    Just some players I wouldn't mind having in no particular order. I'm sure I've missed some goody's.

    PG
    Farmar
    Sessions
    Jack

    SG
    Morrow+9
    Barbosa
    Lee
    I think another piece would be nice, but isn't anywhere near necessary. They clearly want Lance to get a few minutes a game and try to develop him. While Hill is out, there is enough minutes to go around even if somebody is acquired. When Hill comes back though, minutes get really tight.

    There are 144 minutes between the 1-3 positions. Even with Vogel doing a good job limiting their minutes most of the time (no Pacers player is in the top 30 in the NBA in minutes per game) Granger, George, and Collison are averaging 98.7 minutes per game. Even if you get even more conservative with them than Vogel already is and take them down just over a minute each, they'll play 95 minutes. That leaves 49 minutes for the rest of the squad. Hill has played about 25 minutes per game for the Pacers which is already less than he did in San Antonio. So that leaves 24 minutes to divide up between Lance getting a few minutes for development and Jones. That doesn't leave much room for another player.

    And in the playoffs, that other player would be nearly useless. The foursome of Granger, George, Collison, and Hill will play between 125-135 minutes most nights. That leaves less than 20 minutes a game, and most of those are going to be at the SF position where Jones has the inside track to those minutes.

    Before the season, it made some sense to get another wing. The Pacers didn't know if George and Collison could handle the increased minutes or if Jones could become effective in his bench role. At this point though, another wing is mainly an injury replacement so they would have to come really, really cheaply to be worth it. And most players that come that cheap (and are expiring so the Pacers will have the cap space this summer) aren't going to be much of an upgrade over Lance and AJ.

  18. #13
    Whale Shepherd cdash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The Sprawl
    Age
    29
    Posts
    18,145

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    If we only had Josh McRoberts and Brandon Rush...I mean...20-2, right?

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cdash For This Useful Post:


  20. #14
    Member ilive4sports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    6,872

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    Quote Originally Posted by cdash View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If we only had Josh McRoberts and Brandon Rush...I mean...20-2, right?
    I can see behind the back passes for 3's from Rush.

  21. #15
    Member pacers74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Plainfield
    Posts
    2,296

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    And I thought the sky was going to fall when I found out GH was going to be out for an extended amount of time. GH will get his playing time when he is healthy. He is too good to not, but it will not be at the expense of PG. D.Jones and Lance might not get as much time when GH comes back.
    Last edited by pacers74; 02-04-2012 at 02:43 AM.

  22. #16
    Member ilive4sports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    6,872

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    I think ball movement is just better with PG on the floor. I think that collison knows how to play with PG better than Hill and that Hill is still learning his way with the team. The way we use Hill, he plays with everyone. That should be expected.

    I think some rotation tinkering could be had. Instead of subbing PG out so early for GH, let him stay til the 3 minute mark and bring in Lance and GH for PG and DC, instead of running DC/GH for half a quarter. Let PG work with the starters and assert himself early. Let GH get used to the second unit, get him rolling with Tyler.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to ilive4sports For This Useful Post:


  24. #17
    Member mcampbellarch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    olympia, wa
    Posts
    169

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    Does Hill want to be in Indy? Seems like everyone else has bought in, so to say. He seems talented enough and professional to play well regardless. But the group ethos is what is necessary on a team like the Pacers compared to one with all the star power. To make the next step this group needs commitment, above average talent, smart coaching, or Wade, Bosh and Lebron.

  25. #18

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    One thing I like about george is he's a willing passer, when him and west both passed it back and forth a couple times to get an easy basket was very nice to see. And I love his pumpfake

  26. #19

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    With regards to Hill, well, let's just say that he's a great complement to both Dc and PG. When they both struggled (as seen from some of the earlier games), it's Hill who steps up. It's just how we are getting the balance out of the backcourt rotation.

    With regards to Granger, like I have mentioned earlier in one of my posts, PG and DG can coexist. We should just accept the fact that PG is much more comfortable playing the 2-guard and Granger playing SF doesn't affect PG's growth in a negative way. Their combo reminds me of Miller-Rose tandem back in the late 90's. Any of them can carry the team at different times. And both are capable to do damage at the same time.

    Currently, Hill's absence is not much felt because of PG's current rampage. But of course, it is really much better to have Hill there ready to backup when at some point PG struggles.

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 15th parallel For This Useful Post:


  28. #20
    Feed the big fella. Infinite MAN_force's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Broadripple
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,255

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    Quote Originally Posted by imbtyler View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    Also, if he remains consistent (knock on wood), replacing Granger with a greater, more valuable asset might not look like a bad idea after all.

    The idea that Danny and Paul can't coexist just needs to go away. They aren't even the same kind of defender, having BOTH is an absolute asset.

    Danny is stronger than Paul, he matches up much better with the big 3s like Lebron and Carmelo, he can even slide over and guard athletic 4s like Josh Smith.

    Paul is quicker than Danny, he can match up with the quick 2s like Kobe and Wade. He even has the quickness to match up with quick PGs like Derrick Rose, and his length is an absolute nightmare for these types of players.

    Both often have size advantages at their position that creates mismatch opportunities on offense.

    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

    - ilive4sports

  29. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Infinite MAN_force For This Useful Post:


  30. #21

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote


    Danny is stronger than Paul, he matches up much better with the big 3s like Lebron and Carmelo, he can even slide over and guard athletic 4s like Josh Smith.
    This is an opinion that people keep stating as fact. I'd rather Paul guard Lebron and Mello because he can stay in front of them. Keeping them from walking into the lane is more important than guarding their post game. Have you seen Danny try to guard Lebron?

    As of now, I'd go with Danny against PF and PF hybrids like Josh Smith (there's very few of these types of players). In a year or two when Paul fills out, there won't be anyone Danny guards better. Paul just has more tools to work with + he's taller.

    On offense, our size in theory should be an advantage, but it hasn't worked out that way. Danny's shooting a career low, and Paul rarely posts up, instead he's shooting over, or trying to dribble around smaller players. I wish coach would call more post play for him and force him to develop that part of his game more. Someday it's gonna be a huge weapon for us.

  31. #22
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,536

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    Quote Originally Posted by CJ Jones View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This is an opinion that people keep stating as fact. I'd rather Paul guard Lebron and Mello because he can stay in front of them. Keeping them from walking into the lane is more important than guarding their post game. Have you seen Danny try to guard Lebron?

    As of now, I'd go with Danny against PF and PF hybrids like Josh Smith (there's very few of these types of players). In a year or two when Paul fills out, there won't be anyone Danny guards better. Paul just has more tools to work with + he's taller.

    On offense, our size in theory should be an advantage, but it hasn't worked out that way. Danny's shooting a career low, and Paul rarely posts up, instead he's shooting over, or trying to dribble around smaller players. I wish coach would call more post play for him and force him to develop that part of his game more. Someday it's gonna be a huge weapon for us.
    I think that idea is coming from some of us watching Paul get beat by much stronger players. LeBron absolutely destroyed Paul George earlier this season. Paul just wasn't strong enough.

    With the incredible defense Danny has been playing this season I certainly hope next time they play Danny is left on LBJ most of the game.

  32. #23

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think that idea is coming from some of us watching Paul get beat by much stronger players. LeBron absolutely destroyed Paul George earlier this season. Paul just wasn't strong enough.
    There was a few times Paul was on him that game, but for the most part Danny was guarding him and getting killed.

    I don't doubt Paul got beat some too. That was probably his first time guarding Lebron, so that's to be expected. He's still the best option we have on him though IMO.

  33. #24
    Member ilive4sports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    6,872

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    I thank you for your post and your signature.

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to ilive4sports For This Useful Post:


  35. #25
    Member jeffg-body's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    3,560
    Mood

    Default Re: No, we aren't better without George Hill...

    I have to agree that PG has been on fire with the extended minutes these past few games but I also believe that GH gives us a ton of energy and is a great complimentary piece to the team as a whole and we are much better with him in the game. If we give the young man too much burn on the court he will be exhausted by the end of the season. I'd like to see PG staying around 30 mins a game and just be a bit more aggressive when he is in the game. Either way it is a nice issue to have on the team on whether we should play two good players in minutes allocated.

Similar Threads

  1. George Hill not happy at all about the trade
    By bphil in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 06-28-2011, 11:37 AM
  2. george hill available for brandon rush
    By billbradley in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 06-26-2010, 12:43 AM
  3. Eddie George to star in play
    By Basketball Fan in forum Indianapolis Colts
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-14-2010, 07:29 PM
  4. San Antonio Spurs sticking with guard George Hill in starting lineup [ESPN]
    By RoboHicks in forum NBA Headlines (RSS Feeds)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-18-2010, 09:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •