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

Collison or Hill?

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

  • #46
    Re: Collison or Hill?

    Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
    My post assumes we get a starting PG allowing Hill to play more SG then PG. He'd be our scorer off the bench and backup PG. I seriously doubt he'll get an offer in the 7-7.5 mil range. If he does, I'd probably let him walk.

    I agree DC's probably worth more then a late 1st, but if we sign Hill and another PG then we won't have the minutes for DC. Having 2 1sts and Tyler to deal in the off season/draft could net us the athletic big we all can agree we need.

    Just curious... how much do we think DC will command next off season if we decide to go that route?





    There were some turnovers that had me scratching my head and his defense could have been better, but for the most part I thought Hill was one of our best players this post season. The stats back that up... 14 pts on 10 shots per game - 45% shooting 38% from 3. I don't get the frustration with him.



    Because you're in the minority here when it comes to George Hill... that turns you off him? That sounds kinda lame.



    Yeah, well, neither is Darren Collison.

    George Hill gets my vote because he's more versatile.
    He is one streaky mother****er. I'll take DC and his flaws for the price and upside. At least what you see is what you get every night.
    Senior at the University of Louisville.
    Greenfield ---> The Ville

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Collison or Hill?

      Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
      I'm trying to understand why so many more people prefer George Hill in what I consider a toss-up. Is it because he's from Indianapolis and went to school locally at IUPUI? Is it because he played for the Spurs? Is it because Darren Collison didn't put up Chris Paul numbers like he did down in New Orleans? Because Hill is the newer Pacer? Because George Hill won a lot of meaningless games at the end of the season as the starter?

      Wow, this board has really turned me off George Hill.
      Because Hill is clearly the better player. He might not be the better PG, but he is the better player.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Collison or Hill?

        Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
        Because you're in the minority here when it comes to George Hill... that turns you off him? That sounds kinda lame.
        I feel that Darren Collison was unfairly maligned all season and George Hill received too much unwarranted praise (especially during that end of season run against lottery teams during which Danny and David played like BAMFs). One got the benefit of the doubt, while the other one didn't. I wasted way too much time this season trying to counter that current, and I'm a little burned and bummed out about it. I'll be glad when George Hill doesn't return next season, but it has very little to do with how he played on the court or carried himself off of it.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Collison or Hill?

          what about Goran Dragic?

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Collison or Hill?

            I personally feel that this is a no-brainer. Collison's time with the Pacers has run its course. He's a good player, and still has plenty of time to be great, but at the time, he's just a way-undersized shooting guard in the point position. That's not to say that George Hill is any more of a point guard (because he's not), but when it comes between these two guys, the answer should be clear. On one hand, Hill is the much better player overall. On another hand, Hill's name and roots are marketable to the Hoosier fanbase. On a third hand, Hill's defense is considerably better than DC's, due primarily to his height advantage (two inches makes a difference, but I think it has to be more than that). And on the final hand, bringing in Hill helped change the team to be much better. He's already flourished as the starting point guard, and court general (for the time being), which works in our favor.

            NOW, here's what needs to be taken into consideration. How do we deal with keeping Hill, IF () we upgrade at the point guard position? Some say he'll demand too much money to be a back-up. This is probably true. However, if Hibbert is encouraged to take a (moderate) pay cut to help secure and better this team, why wouldn't Hill, if he appreciates being here?

            Of course, the following must all be taken into consideration, that we have no idea what's going to happen this offseason, who's going to stay, who's going to go, who's going to be added to the team, who's going to develop enough to demand starting positions. But letting Hill play more SG minutes, and giving more SF minutes to Paul, will allow for this 'upgraded point guard' (or, UPG) to start. On the chance that Granger gets moved in the offseason (something I'm neither looking forward to, nor hoping for), then I would start Hill at the 2, and Paul at the 3.

            If we don't have a new/different wing player to backup the 2, I think that a full offseason, and working hard with the UPG, will be good for Lance's development. This would leave him to backup both guard spots, and potentially* be the motion of the second unit offense, as well as creating scoring opportunities for himself and others.

            Regardless, to recap and reanswer the question, I think the clear and easiest answer would be to let DC go, and bring back Hill, who (in case some haven't noticed) can do a lot of the things that Eric Gordon does, yet doesn't seem to have that killer instinct that EJ uses to score in bunches. However, any of our players could use a lesson in "killer instinct"; that's a level of confidence that EJ has had for a while, and our younger players still need to develop. At the end of the day, though, Hill is much more valuable to us than DC; the only reason why we shouldn't try keeping him is the Almighty Dollar.



            * The Big P Word used liberally here, Lance has as much, if not more, than Paul George. If he gets his passing right, his shot perfected, and his confidence in order, he can be just as valuable as Paul, and, who knows, maybe even eliminate the need for an Upgraded Point Guard. Again, I used "potentially" VERY liberally.
            witters: @imbtyler, @postgameonline

            Originally posted by Day-V
            In conclusion, Paul George is awesome.
            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham
            Our arena, their arena, Rucker park, it just doesn't matter. We're bigger, longer, younger, faster, and hungrier.


            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Collison or Hill?

              Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
              I feel that Darren Collison was unfairly maligned all season and George Hill received too much unwarranted praise (especially during that end of season run against lottery teams during which Danny and David played like BAMFs). One got the benefit of the doubt, while the other one didn't. I wasted way too much time this season trying to counter that current, and I'm a little burned and bummed out about it. I'll be glad when George Hill doesn't return next season, but it has very little to do with how he played on the court or carried himself off of it.
              There were several people calling for Hill to start long before the run at the end of the season. Actually, several us thought he would be the better option before the season even started. Just because our opinion doesn't jive with yours doesn't make it right or wrong, it's just an opinion. Don't beat yourself up or take it out on Hill.

              Darren's been here long enough for people to get an accurate judgement of his game. No one's picking on him. I think it's safe to say everyone here really likes him, just not as our starting PG.

              BTW, what makes you so sure Hill won't be a Pacer next season?

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Collison or Hill?

                Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                For salary cap reasons alone, gotta keep a cheap DC over an overpaid George Hill.
                DC is on a cheap rookie contract for just one year more. It does make it feasible for us to keep both Hill and Collison for this one year, but probably not beyond that unless one of them is willing to take a lesser contract (i.e. more in the $4m range than the $7m range).

                As to reasons why many prefer Hill over Collison, there's been plenty mentioned above, but I'll add that Hill seems to be one of those guys who plays better than his stats. It's the same reason I preferred Jarrett Jack over TJ Ford. Which might be a bad omen since we let Jack go over his contract... but I'm hoping we keep Hill.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Collison or Hill?

                  Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                  I feel that Darren Collison was unfairly maligned all season and George Hill received too much unwarranted praise (especially during that end of season run against lottery teams during which Danny and David played like BAMFs). One got the benefit of the doubt, while the other one didn't. I wasted way too much time this season trying to counter that current, and I'm a little burned and bummed out about it. I'll be glad when George Hill doesn't return next season, but it has very little to do with how he played on the court or carried himself off of it.
                  Well, I do agree with the bolded part. DC inherited Troy Murphy and Obie's scapegoat mantle almost by default, since there are no unlikeable players/coaches left on the roster. If DC goes, I suspect the next guy up is Tyler.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Collison or Hill?

                    keep both unless we get nash or williams, then either or can go.. its literally a toss up and id be leaning more to collison

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Collison or Hill?






                      Here's the funny thing.....DC got complained about because he's a shoot first point guard who doesn't pass, yet in both regular season AND playoffs, he averaged more assists per game...When talking about these two, it's basically a wash. They are very similar as far as stats go. Personally, I think Collison has more growth left in his game then Hill does. Hill seams like he is set in his game and plays at his ability where Darren is still finding out what he can do....Just my 2 cents....


                      edit....I promise those stats were lined up for easy reading before I hit post.....
                      Last edited by ejwallace; 05-26-2012, 09:12 AM. Reason: added pictures....
                      http://www.nba.com/gamenotes/pacers.pdf

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Collison or Hill?

                        Originally posted by ejwallace View Post
                        DC:
                        GP MPG FGM-FGA FG% 3PM-3PA 3P% FTM-FTA FT% RPG APG BLKPG STLPG PFPG TOPG PPG
                        2011-12 Regular Season 60 31.3 3.8-8.7 .440 0.6-1.6 .362 2.1-2.6 .830 3.1 4.8 0.2 0.8 1.7 1.9 10.4
                        2011-12 Postseason 11 18.6 3.3-6.4 .514 0.4-1.0 .364 1.8-2.1 .870 1.3 3.0 0.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 8.7

                        Hill:
                        2011-12 Regular Season 50 25.5 3.4-7.6 .442 1.1-2.9 .367 1.8-2.3 .778 3.0 2.9 0.3 0.8 2.0 1.0 9.6
                        2011-12 Postseason 11 31.5 4.3-9.5 .448 1.4-3.6 .375 3.5-4.2 .848 2.3 2.9 0.3 1.2 1.9 2.0 13.5

                        Here's the funny thing.....DC got complained about because he's a shoot first point guard who doesn't pass, yet in both regular season AND playoffs, he averaged more assists per game...When talking about these two, it's basically a wash. They are very similar as far as stats go. Personally, I think Collison has more growth left in his game then Hill does. Hill seams like he is set in his game and plays at his ability where Darren is still finding out what he can do....Just my 2 cents....

                        edit....I promise those stats were lined up for easy reading before I hit post.....

                        People weren't complaining that he doesn't pass... they we're complaining that he can't pass effectively.

                        I'll admit offensively it's pretty even, but defensively is where Hill sets himself apart from Collison.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Collison or Hill?

                          Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                          I'll admit offensively it's pretty even, but defensively is where Hill sets himself apart from Collison.
                          I hear this all the time, but I wonder how much of that perception is based on reputation and superior size as opposed to the actual results. I seem to remember Mario Chalmers and Jameer Nelson having periods of offensive ascendancy against Hill's defense in the past two series. I'm open to the possibility of being incorrect, and I've definitely observed an elite level of defense from time to time, but I'd like to see some defensive statistics - personal and team - to back it up. Just how much better than DC is he?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Collison or Hill?

                            http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...s-george-hill/

                            Here's an article on the topic as well....

                            A few weeks before the playoffs Geroge Hill got the chance to start at point guard due to an injury to Darren Collison. George Hill played well enough that Frank Vogel declared him starter the rest of the way. A few were questioning the decision to tamper with the lineup right before the playoffs but the decision has proven to be worthy and is a good fit for both players.

                            Collison and Hill are both point guards but they are very different players. Collison is more of a pure point guard (he was on the same team as Chris Paul, remember, coincidence? I think not), Hill is a score-first point guard; Collison is great defensively, Hill struggles on the pick and roll (Hill isn’t horrible defensively but he’s nowhere near the level of DC); Collison scores more by driving to the basket, Hill scores more by spotting up.

                            George Hill has taken full advantage of getting the nod as the starting point guard. During the regular season he averaged 8.7 points per game when coming off the bench. In the playoffs so far he has bounced that up to 14.5 per game. That’s almost 4 points more than Darren Collison was giving you as a starter (10.8 per game).

                            But Darren Collison hasn’t just given up while coming off the bench, he’s been even better as a bench player than Hill was. In fact, Collison has been much better coming off the bench than he was as a starter. In the playoffs he’s nearly equaled his points per game as a starter (10.8 as a starter, 8.4 off the bench). Also in the playoffs he’s made a major leap in points per 48 minutes; 16.2 as a starter during the regular season and a crazy jump to 21.9 in the playoffs.

                            As George Hill has been the better scorer during the playoffs, Darren Collison has been the better field general (like I mentioned earlier, he’s a better pure point guard). George Hill is only supplying 2.8 assists per game while Collison has 3.6 despite averaging more than 10 minutes less than Hill. Collison is also 6th in the playoffs (minimum of 15 minutes per game) in assists per 48 minutes with 9.5.

                            While I’ve just thrown a bunch of stats at you the main difference is something that can’t be measured by statistics. Darren Collison brings a boat load of energy off the bench, something that George Hill didn’t supply as much. Sure George Hill was a good bench scorer and is an even better scorer as a starter but one of the main things teams look for in bench players is energy, which Darren Collison is great at. The second he enters the game the defense intensifies and he plays lock down D on the other team’s ball handler. This energy is infectious (one of the reasons bench energy is so important) and inspires his other teammates to put in the extra effort. (Also, on a totally unrelated topic about Lance Stephenson’s choke gesture Vogel said “ But I fully support the energy he brings from the bench. That’s what I want from my bench, bringing enthusiasm.”)

                            So there may still be people who question Vogel’s decision but, hey, it’s worked out great in more ways than one. As Vogel said when he made the decision, they’re both top ten point guards (arguable) which is a good problem to have.
                            Last edited by ejwallace; 05-26-2012, 09:22 AM.
                            http://www.nba.com/gamenotes/pacers.pdf

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Collison or Hill?

                              Neither. Want a legit starting PG & another dynamic player. Use these 2 to gain more capspace & trades if necessary.if one winds up back I see them as about a toss up anyway. GH has 2 position ability is main difference.
                              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                              -Emiliano Zapata

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Collison or Hill?

                                Originally posted by imbtyler View Post

                                Of course, the following must all be taken into consideration, that we have no idea what's going to happen this offseason, who's going to stay, who's going to go, who's going to be added to the team, who's going to develop enough to demand starting positions. But letting Hill play more SG minutes, and giving more SF minutes to Paul, will allow for this 'upgraded point guard' (or, UPG) to start. On the chance that Granger gets moved in the offseason (something I'm neither looking forward to, nor hoping for), then I would start Hill at the 2, and Paul at the 3.
                                I think moving Danny will be a necessity if we are able to pull off bringing in a UPG. Whether it's Deron or Nash, I have to think moving Danny will have to be a part of that deal. It's scary, because we got to see what happens when Danny isn't on the team (when he got hurt or when he came off the floor), but to pursue the bigger picture of a championship (and not just being a good team), I think we need to find an elite PG (or any superstar).

                                Much of this depends on Paul George realizing his potential, too. If, IF, Paul George is going to take a leap next year, then he could be the starting SF, Hill could be the SG next to the UPG. Put those three with West and Hibbert, and that's a nice starting five. I think Hill would be a nice scorer if his job didn't have to include being the distributor, as well. Let him run off screens (like Reggie) and get fed by the UPG. Having him run the offense isn't the best use of his skill set.

                                Now, the question of Lance and his potential is whole other wild card issue. If Danny were to be dealt, then we're looking at hoping two of our players realize the potential many see for them. Paul and Lance will have to step up. It's a risky proposition, but in order to get that UPG and put ourselves in position to win a championship (the goal), I'm afraid moving Danny and getting more out of Paul and Lance will be necessary.

                                If we stand pat, I think we know our ceiling. So, I don't want to stand pat. Make a move.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X