Offensive system, George Hill/combo guard.

Starkiller · Post #1 » by **Starkiller** » Mon Apr 1, 2013 12:00 pm

Had some thoughts about this the other day. With our system it's been said that it uses a combo guard type of PG rather than a pass first, floor general type of PG. If that is the case, would a better scoring combo PG benefit us over George Hill? Note, I LOVE George and don't want to trade him or anything but just thinking hypothetically. I know it's been gone over a ton, but given that it's not a traditional PG position, would someone like Monta be even better? Basically, someone who can score even better that George can. Kyle Lowery, Kemba Walker, Isiah Thomas? Just spitballin here.

Post #2 » by **Jake0890** » Mon Apr 1, 2013 12:50 pm

I love Isaiah Thomas and Kemba Walker, but no thanks to Monta. Sure, he scores more, but he's also ball dominant and takes a lot away from other players. His character isn't exactly what we want here either with his sexual assault charge record.

Starkiller · Post #3 » by **Starkiller** » Mon Apr 1, 2013 1:53 pm

Yeah I wasn't saying him exactly, just that type of player, I agree he'd be too ball dominant. Just someone who can scored very well, whenever we need him to.

Wizop · Post #4 » by **Wizop** » Mon Apr 1, 2013 1:59 pm

George Hill fits just fine. He could play more two guard than he does now, but Vogel wants him to concentrate on developing his point guard skills. He's getting better at the position all the time. I can't see us replacing the Home Town Hero with someone who fits the position even less. Now replacing Augustine with someone who can defend bigger point guards I can see. Perhaps the draft will give us someone.

Starkiller · Post #5 » by **Starkiller** » Mon Apr 1, 2013 2:14 pm

Yeah I don't want to replace George either, just totally thinking hypothetically. What takes us to the next level?

Post #6 » by **pacers33granger** » Mon Apr 1, 2013 2:21 pm

I think we're fine with Hill as the starting point. He's a great shooter, doesn't make many mistakes, and can score when he needs to. I still think what we need is a point guard who can drive. When Lance fills that role and plays under control, we are a much better team.

Another big issue is DJ's inconsistency. Give us someone like Jerryd Bayless in his spot and our offense is a lot better.

8305 · Post #7 » by **8305** » Mon Apr 1, 2013 10:01 pm

I also fine with Hill. The other thing to consider who is a legitiment upgrade and what would it cost to acquire such a player. As a free agent do we project to have the cap space necessary to make the addition or in a trade do we have the assets to faciliate the exchange?

Post #8 » by **Jake0890** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 2:21 am

Hypothetically, it does make sense. but so do many more things with this roster.

PacersPete · Post #9 » by **PacersPete** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 3:57 pm

pacers33granger wrote:I still think what we need is a point guard who can drive. When Lance fills that role and plays under control, we are a much better team.

Agree completely with this. Late in the game yesterday, hill could not do anything at all. He gets pressured by defenders and takes the whole shot clock to just get across halfcourt and can't penetrate for his life. He is just not a ball handler and it gets exposed often. Especially against teams like the heat that pressure him. He is best off the ball as a shooter and lance is the one who can drive, create for himself and others.

Combo guards are score first ball handlers. Hill is not a ball handler, he is a shooting guard.

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/george-h ... oint-guard

George Hill still isn't sure about this point guard thing. He grew up wanting to be a shooting guard, he played shooting guard at IUPUI and was primarily a shooting guard for his first three NBA seasons with San Antonio.

“I'm reluctant to play the one. I'm happy with it, I 'm learning, but there's still some two in my body.”

Hill, however, isn't a conventional point guard because the Pacers don't have a conventional approach. Lance Stephenson, a shooting guard by title, is a former point guard who can handle the ball and make point guard-like passes,

Post #10 » by **pacers33granger** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 7:01 pm

Of possibly available options out there this summer, I'd try and go after Ridnour. Good solid distributor and can hit threes and is used to playing off ball at times too.

Post #11 » by **PR07** » Wed Apr 3, 2013 3:14 am

Hill may not score as well as some of the other guys mentioned, but he also defends a lot better than most of them. Vogel is on record of calling him the best, "Defensive point guard in the NBA". While I don't think it's true, it speaks volumes to what he feels Hill brings to the team.

Post #12 » by **pacers33granger** » Wed Apr 3, 2013 2:19 pm

PR07 wrote:Hill may not score as well as some of the other guys mentioned, but he also defends a lot better than most of them. Vogel is on record of calling him the best, "Defensive point guard in the NBA". While I don't think it's true, it speaks volumes to what he feels Hill brings to the team.

It doesn't hurt his value to us that he can switch onto almost any 2 in the league with no problem. I think if we had someone like a Lowry at the point our defense would drop off a lot. It helps Roy quite a bit that he can stay in position usually since all 4 other starters can switch onto most other positions.

Hill can defend both guard spots
Stephenson has trouble with quick points, but has the strength to defend taller players
George can guard any wing player and some 4s
West can guard some 3s and 5s

8305 · Post #13 » by **8305** » Thu Apr 4, 2013 4:24 am

I agree that what Hill allows the Pacers to do defensively is under rated in many circles. When you consider that Lance and Paul George both handle the ball a lot, throw in David West's advanced passing skills and the need for an elite ball handler isn't that strong.