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

Zach Lowe on George Hill

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

  • #16
    Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

    Originally posted by pacersgroningen View Post
    George is a winning player, without a doubt. Before he came here, he played on successfull teams, and he brought part of that mentality with him. The first year, with Collison still here, he accepted a role on the bench, just to make things work. I think that speaks volume about his character and his personality. He is a guy that can help you win, big time, just because of his attitude. However, make no mistake, his attitude and personality led to his downfall as well.

    The season when PG was out, he performed admirably when he was at 100%. If he would have played like that, on say the Atl team, he would have made the ASG. But the next season, he once again played his part, being a really good teammate and doing what he was asked to do. While in principle, I do really like this trait, it does show that he has given himself a certain ceiling. If he was truly convinced he was that player, capable of making a difference to such a degree, he would not have accepted his role, thus forcing TPTB to give him a different role or find a different situation. Both parties were getting the short end of the deal, with the way it was handled. Hill could have been a much better player and the pacers could have had their 3rd guy on a contending team. It wasn't bad, but it just could have been better for either side.
    Nice post, but Hill had many chances in Indiana to hit his true ceiling and I think he did that. It just isn't as high as people want it to be. He's not a member of anyone's "big 3 on a contender" except a handful of Pacer fans who over rate him. He simply isn't that good. I understand some people outside Indiana probably under rate him because he's not flashy and being efficient and a solid but not great player doesn't get attention.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

      I believe that Hill has always been a very good player. And, he will be a great player in Utah as well.

      His problem in Indy has been his role, his aggressiveness and how he was utilized. Let's face it, Hill didn't stand in a corner waiting for the ball to be reversed to give him an open three point attempt out of choice. It's merely how he was utilized for a couple of the years he was here. I think it was a very poor use of his skill set, but I suppose I would give him credit for the playing the role that was handed to him.

      Hill was at his best ball when he put pressure on the defense when he aggressively attacked with the ball in his hands or when he quickly cut in an attempt to receive the ball. I would agree with those that Hill wasn't aggressive often enough. This may have led to his being utilized less in the offense at times.

      Regardless of his offensive utilization, he was always a key cog on the defensive end of the floor.

      All of this being said, I believe Teague will prove to be a much better contributor to the Pacers offensive flow and production than Hill was. The problem Teague will face with Pacer fans is that he has some pretty big shoes to fill on the defensive end of the floor.

      As the season progresses, comparisons between Teague and what we recall of Hill are inevitable. I wish Tegaue nothing but the best. Like Mattie, I would be surprised if Teague does not quickly become one of my favorite players on the roster. I wish him nothing but the best.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

        Has George Hill ever been asked to be the main guy setting up players? Because that's what he'll be in Utah. I know everyone is saying this is perfect for both parties, but I don't think Utah is a good fit. Ghill can't be your main assist guy getting players involved.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
          Has George Hill ever been asked to be the main guy setting up players? Because that's what he'll be in Utah. I know everyone is saying this is perfect for both parties, but I don't think Utah is a good fit. Ghill can't be your main assist guy getting players involved.
          They're saying that won't be his role- but even if it was, the only time in his career he was asked to do that he had a better assist rate than Damien Lillard. and he only had ONE shooter on the court with him. (CJ Miles prior to this past season).

          GH3, as the lead PG, produced the best offense the Pacers have had in 4 years (8th ranked offense). Before that the Pacers offense was 20th or worse every single season except 11/12 with Granger... it was 9th that season.
          Last edited by mattie; 06-24-2016, 09:25 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

            I disagree that Hill had many chances to see his potential in Indy. You can't hit your potential when your role is changing drastically every year.

            Everyone knows my thoughts on George. I think he's a winning player and your typical lead guard (notice I didn't say point guard) that plays with all star, ball dominant wing players. George is a very good defender of 2guards and is a good defender of point guards. Our system, while amazing from a team concept, wasn't the best fit for Hill individually. His lone defensive weaknesses (lateral quickness) was able to be exploited by teams that spread us out. The defensive scheme of Utah; their more aggressive, switching defense will keep him off an island with the elite and allow him to play more to his strengths defensively. Even with that fact, Hill was quite good defensively. He often slowed opposing Pg in the playoffs (Lowry, Wall, Felton, Nelson)

            Offensively Is where Hill's role constantly changed. He fit best with the smashmouth, Danny Granger pacers. We played a deliberate, but efficient brand of basketball. We were able to run pick and pops with West with Danny and Paul on the wings. He also fit the next year as our secondary ball handler to Paul when Danny went down. It was after that season (2013) that things began to change.

            Lance's emergence and Hill's versatility made it plausible for Lance to handle the ball more and Hill to be our designated 3point shooter. The issue is, that's NEVER been Hill's game. While Hill was a capable shooter, he had always been effective with the ball (both in SA and IND)he lost his already erratic aggressivness, and became the bane and scapegoat of our lineup for many fans.

            We saw Hill's best season two seasons ago as a leading scorer on a mediocre team. Though that should never be his role, he showed what he could do when given the opportunity to handle the ball predominantly. He was highly efficient, and looked to be primed for a leading role with a healthy Paul George the following season.....yeaaa about that.

            We all know how this past season finished. What could have been a great year, ended up being a mediocre one. But Hill did what he always does, and played the role given to him at a fairly high level. He turned himself into a very effective shooter while maintaining a nice defensive game. He and Monta never really worked well together. But they made the best of it.

            For one reason or another, Hill could never consistently be aggressive enough to quiet his critics. He was CONSTANTLY criticized and critiqued for everything he wasn't, and not appreciated near enough for what he was. Being from the area only added to that fact.

            George was never an Wlite, an AS, or a cornerstone of the franchise. But he was also never a malcontent, locker room problem or poor teammate. He always did what he was told, and was versatile to produce within EVERYTIME that he was given. He was clutch and hit many game winners for us(stay away from clutch FTs though lol).

            Unlike Roy (another heavily criticized player) he was never a net negative for the team on the floor (contrary to what Millertime 11-whatever, Grimp, Geek, and others would have you believe) and always approaches the game with professionalism.

            I will miss the hell out of George Hill. He was the absolute last of my favorite recent Pacer players. I know some have that holier than thou rule to not get attached to players, but I do. And eventually I'll have to find someone else to identify with on the team. Which I'm sure that will come with time. But in the meantime, the Utah Jazz have gained themselves a season LP viewer.

            I am happy Hill is going to a team that WANTS and fits him. I'm hoping for the best for him. I'm hoping for the best from the Pacers this season as well.
            Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 06-24-2016, 10:02 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Zach Lowe on George Hill

              I'm a very big fan and will continue to be a platinum member of the GHill fan club. I think it's silly to expect all players to be "top 3" dogs. Part of the reason I love GHills game is that he plays within himself and knows the team concept well. He can go from perimeter bomber to double digit assists from game to game based upon the circumstances. He never shirks doing the hard or dirty work during the game. He's always a professional.

              He is most certainly a strong 4th or 5th option on a championship level squad.

              I would have loved seeing him paired with a true point guard. From day one, Hill came here and said he saw himself as a SG. I hope he gets to a place in his career where he can contend again and play roles that match his strengths.


              Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                Has George Hill ever been asked to be the main guy setting up players? Because that's what he'll be in Utah. I know everyone is saying this is perfect for both parties, but I don't think Utah is a good fit. Ghill can't be your main assist guy getting players involved.
                If George is asked to create for others in Utah, they will be disappointed and he might even find the bench. He's never ever shown that he can create for others and it's because he's never been consistently aggressive enough to perform that role. It may also be that he cannot see the floor well enough but we know he hasn't been a creator for others.

                In 2012-13 he had a very good year, averaging 14.3ppg and 4.7 assists. That's not bad, but it's simply not good enough for a point guard in terms of getting other guys shots. The issue is that a player who racks up 7 or more assists per game is a guy who gets guys easy looks. He's a guy who puts pressure on the D and defenders get on their heels. With George, the defense remains aggressive. With a PG like Jamaal Tinsley we had issues...but he had the type of game that kept teams on their heels. He had 50% more assists and the defense was kept honest and couldn't cheat. This is the primary reason George Hill, who has nice size for a PG and very, very good defense, is moving on. You guys know our offensive rating has been sinking for years now...and we were 25th in the league last year. I think that starts with the guy initiating the offense. As much as I like George's game in terms of 6th man/combo...he's just not the guy you want starting at PG. He's better than some of the other options we've had in Indy but I think we've been pretty weak there for so long we don't even recognize a good PG anymore.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  I disagree that Hill had many chances to see his potential in Indy. You can't hit your potential when your role is changing drastically every year.

                  Everyone knows my thoughts on George. I think he's a winning player and your typical lead guard (notice I didn't say point guard) that plays with all star, ball dominant wing players. George is a very good defender of 2guards and is a good defender of point guards. Our system, while amazing from a team concept, wasn't the best fit for Hill individually. His lone defensive weaknesses (lateral quickness) was able to be exploited by teams that spread us out. The defensive scheme of Utah. Their more aggressive, switching defense will keep him off an island with the elite and allow him to play more to his strengths defensively. Even with that fact, Hill was quite good defensively. He often slowed opposing Pg in the playoffs (Lowry, Wall, Felton, Nelson)

                  Offensively Is where Hill's role constantly changed. He fit best with the smashmouth, Danny Granger pacers. We played a deliberate, but efficient brand of basketball. We were able to run pick and pops with West with Danny and Paul on the wings. He also fit the next year as our secondary ball handler to Paul when Danny went down. It was after that season (2013) that things began to change.

                  Lance's emergence and Hill's versatility made it plausible for Lance to handle the ball more and Hill to be our designated 3point shooter. The issue is, that's NEVER been Hill's game. While Hill was a capable shooter, he had always been effective with the ball (both in SA and IND)he lost his already erratic aggressivness, and became the bane and scapegoat of our lineup for many fans.

                  We saw Hill's best season two seasons ago as a leading scorer on a mediocre team. Though that should never be his role, he showed what he could do when given the opportunity to handle the ball predominantly. He was highly efficient, and looked to be primed for a leading role with a healthy Paul George the following season.....yeaaa about that.

                  We all know how this past season finished. What could have been a great year, ended up being a mediocre one. But Hill did what he always does, and played the role given to him at a fairly high level. He turned himself into a very effective shooter while maintaining a nice defensive game. He and Monta never really worked well together. But they made the best of it.

                  For one reason or another, Hill could never consistently be aggressive enough to quiet his critics. He was CONSTANTLY criticized and critiqued for everything he wasn't, and not appreciated near enough for what he was. Being from the area only added to that fact.

                  George was never an Wlite, an AS, or a cornerstone of the franchise. But he was also never a malcontent, locker room problem or poor teammate. He always did what he was told, and was versatile to produce within EVERYTIME that he was given. He was clutch and hit many game winners for us(stay away from couch FTs though lol).

                  Unlike Roy (another heavily criticized player) he was never a net negative for the team on the floor (contrary to what Millertime 11-whatever, Grimp, Geek, and others would have you believe) and always approaches the game with professionalism.

                  I will miss the hell out of George Hill. He was the absolute last of my favorite recent Pacer players. I know some have that holier than thou rule to not get attached to players, but I do. And eventually I'll have to find someone else to identify with on the team. Which I'm sure that will come with time. But in the meantime, the Utah Jazz have gained themselves a season LP viewer.

                  I am happy Hill is going to a team that WANTS and fits him. I'm hoping for the best for him. I'm hoping for the best from the Pacers this season as well.
                  Yup.

                  The biggest tragedy of the George Hill era was the 2 years ago. Just absolutely devastating. Not having an opportunity to prove yourself is NOT unique to GH3, there have certainly been other players that never really got to prove themselves.

                  But my excitement going into that season had never been higher- I thought- Everyone and their mother is scapegoating GH3, but he will once and for all, emphatically prove them wrong.

                  And then he got injured! haha He only got to play half a season. He did exactly as I predicted tho. And them some! Had he played the entire season, he would have averaged 18/19ppg, 6 assists, won an all-star bid, and proved once and for all who he was as a player. Grantland would have written a fawning article about his play, twitter would have repeated "he's underrated" until people were tired of hearing it, and the Pacers brass would have put full faith behind him. But nope. He only got half a season. He did do what I expected tho. He scored. Efficiently. He wont games, he got the offensive moving at incredibly efficient rate considering the complete lack of talent around him, and then he went one step further by being the balls scoring one game winner after another, being the man to depend on late. Half a season isn't enough to prove it to the basketball illiterates tho.

                  That game when he scored 29 points on John Wall, scored 8 points in a row to take the lead and then ended up with the game winner? I'll never forget it. Just absolutely brilliant, and there are probably only 5 other points in the league that could have done that. It's a tragedy. But oh well lol. **** happens.
                  Last edited by mattie; 06-24-2016, 10:10 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    I disagree that Hill had many chances to see his potential in Indy. You can't hit your potential when your role is changing drastically every year.

                    Everyone knows my thoughts on George. I think he's a winning player and your typical lead guard (notice I didn't say point guard) that plays with all star, ball dominant wing players. George is a very good defender of 2guards and is a good defender of point guards. Our system, while amazing from a team concept, wasn't the best fit for Hill individually. His lone defensive weaknesses (lateral quickness) was able to be exploited by teams that spread us out. The defensive scheme of Utah; their more aggressive, switching defense will keep him off an island with the elite and allow him to play more to his strengths defensively. Even with that fact, Hill was quite good defensively. He often slowed opposing Pg in the playoffs (Lowry, Wall, Felton, Nelson)

                    Offensively Is where Hill's role constantly changed. He fit best with the smashmouth, Danny Granger pacers. We played a deliberate, but efficient brand of basketball. We were able to run pick and pops with West with Danny and Paul on the wings. He also fit the next year as our secondary ball handler to Paul when Danny went down. It was after that season (2013) that things began to change.

                    Lance's emergence and Hill's versatility made it plausible for Lance to handle the ball more and Hill to be our designated 3point shooter. The issue is, that's NEVER been Hill's game. While Hill was a capable shooter, he had always been effective with the ball (both in SA and IND)he lost his already erratic aggressivness, and became the bane and scapegoat of our lineup for many fans.

                    We saw Hill's best season two seasons ago as a leading scorer on a mediocre team. Though that should never be his role, he showed what he could do when given the opportunity to handle the ball predominantly. He was highly efficient, and looked to be primed for a leading role with a healthy Paul George the following season.....yeaaa about that.

                    We all know how this past season finished. What could have been a great year, ended up being a mediocre one. But Hill did what he always does, and played the role given to him at a fairly high level. He turned himself into a very effective shooter while maintaining a nice defensive game. He and Monta never really worked well together. But they made the best of it.

                    For one reason or another, Hill could never consistently be aggressive enough to quiet his critics. He was CONSTANTLY criticized and critiqued for everything he wasn't, and not appreciated near enough for what he was. Being from the area only added to that fact.

                    George was never an Wlite, an AS, or a cornerstone of the franchise. But he was also never a malcontent, locker room problem or poor teammate. He always did what he was told, and was versatile to produce within EVERYTIME that he was given. He was clutch and hit many game winners for us(stay away from clutch FTs though lol).

                    Unlike Roy (another heavily criticized player) he was never a net negative for the team on the floor (contrary to what Millertime 11-whatever, Grimp, Geek, and others would have you believe) and always approaches the game with professionalism.

                    I will miss the hell out of George Hill. He was the absolute last of my favorite recent Pacer players. I know some have that holier than thou rule to not get attached to players, but I do. And eventually I'll have to find someone else to identify with on the team. Which I'm sure that will come with time. But in the meantime, the Utah Jazz have gained themselves a season LP viewer.

                    I am happy Hill is going to a team that WANTS and fits him. I'm hoping for the best for him. I'm hoping for the best from the Pacers this season as well.
                    Couldn't have said it better myself.


                    Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

                      I think we gave up more in Hill than we gain in Teague. Hill's defense has always been underappreciated on here. Paul played out of his mind against Toronto but we would not have been in that series without George Hill's defense. GH will be missed in the playoffs
                      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

                        Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                        I think we gave up more in Hill than we gain in Teague. Hill's defense has always been underappreciated on here. Paul played out of his mind against Toronto but we would not have been in that series without George Hill's defense. GH will be missed in the playoffs
                        Teague plays great defense as well.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

                          Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                          Teague plays great defense as well.
                          I'll believe it when I see it. From what I've seen of Teague, that's not been the case.

                          I know there are various articles that suggest otherwise, and for the Pacers sake I hope it's right. But again, I'll believe it when I see it

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

                            Originally posted by mattie View Post
                            Yup.

                            The biggest tragedy of the George Hill era was the 2 years ago. Just absolutely devastating. Not having an opportunity to prove yourself is NOT unique to GH3, there have certainly been other players that never really got to prove themselves.

                            But my excitement going into that season had never been higher- I thought- Everyone and their mother is scapegoating GH3, but he will once and for all, emphatically prove them wrong.

                            And then he got injured! haha He only got to play half a season. He did exactly as I predicted tho. And them some! Had he played the entire season, he would have averaged 18/19ppg, 6 assists, won an all-star bid, and proved once and for all who he was as a player. Grantland would have written a fawning article about his play, twitter would have repeated "he's underrated" until people were tired of hearing it, and the Pacers brass would have put full faith behind him. But nope. He only got half a season. He did do what I expected tho. He scored. Efficiently. He wont games, he got the offensive moving at incredibly efficient rate considering the complete lack of talent around him, and then he went one step further by being the balls scoring one game winner after another, being the man to depend on late. Half a season isn't enough to prove it to the basketball illiterates tho.

                            That game when he scored 29 points on John Wall, scored 8 points in a row to take the lead and then ended up with the game winner? I'll never forget it. Just absolutely brilliant, and there are probably only 5 other points in the league that could have done that. It's a tragedy. But oh well lol. **** happens.
                            Don't forget the OKC game where Westbrook went ballistic but Hill hit a few clutch shots to give us the W. He had more than his fair share of those type of moments that season.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

                              Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                              Has George Hill ever been asked to be the main guy setting up players? Because that's what he'll be in Utah. I know everyone is saying this is perfect for both parties, but I don't think Utah is a good fit. Ghill can't be your main assist guy getting players involved.
                              Between Hayward, Hood and Burks (not Burke) the Jazz have 3 perimiter guys that create. They had a hole at the PG spot in terms of defense and scoring. They were starting Shelvin Mack at the end of the year. Hill will be asked to shoot, score, play defense and keep the ball moving.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

                                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                                I'll believe it when I see it. From what I've seen of Teague, that's not been the case.

                                I know there are various articles that suggest otherwise, and for the Pacers sake I hope it's right. But again, I'll believe it when I see it
                                I don't know how you hold opponents to 38% shooting throughout a season and not play good defense.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X