RealGM

He will get on the floor but when and where. since there isn't a George hill discussion thread yet which is odd her ya go i don't have much to say.

Dezmondballins3 wrote:He will get on the floor but when and where. since there isn't a George hill discussion thread yet which is odd her ya go i don't have much to say.

No one knows "when" and "where." He could potentially take over either of the starting guard spots. He could potentially be one of those 6th men receiving starter minutes. Would not shock me if he takes DC's starting gig. They have both proved themselves as quality backup PG's thus the position should be fairly strong for us regardless of the starter.

When is ridiculously up in the air given the impending lockout. Where is going to be at the 1 and 2. He'll see minutes at both spots. I'm not as concerned with whether he starts or not. I like him getting ~30 minutes a game, which seems to be the consensus.

yeah i think he is sixth man but a rare one because i feel he should be on the floor at all times when collision isn't but i also think he will get some 2 guard minutes i think there should be only and strictly 2 man rotation at pg baring injuries.
Im from San Antonio so i been follow hill down from Miami and i think he will be a big help to the pacers.

I like the idea of him as the sixth man, playing both guard spots and getting lots of minutes.

Until I see otherwise, I'm not sure he's a pure point guard, so I think he backs up Collison there. And I want to see George stay in the starting lineup at two guard. But George would make a nice sixth man candidate himself, especially since, like Hill, he can play more than one position.

The Pacers are going to have tons of lineup flexibility if Hill and Stephenson are both combo guards, and George can play either wing. It's possible that any two of Collison/Hill/Stephenson/George could play in the backcourt together, and that you could play three of them together if George slides to small forward.

mizzoupacers wrote:I like the idea of him as the sixth man, playing both guard spots and getting lots of minutes.

Until I see otherwise, I'm not sure he's a pure point guard, so I think he backs up Collison there. And I want to see George stay in the starting lineup at two guard. But George would make a nice sixth man candidate himself, especially since, like Hill, he can play more than one position.

The Pacers are going to have tons of lineup flexibility if Hill and Stephenson are both combo guards, and George can play either wing. It's possible that any two of Collison/Hill/Stephenson/George could play in the backcourt together, and that you could play three of them together if George slides to small forward.

man you're smoking somethin awful if you think PGeorge should be a 6th man. Hill basically brings the type of guy that Al Harrington was for us, except obviously he's 1/2 instead of a 3/4. He can put up points and fill multiple roles while bringing energy off the bench. I dont think he's a starter at either position but he definitely warrants extended minutes off the bench.

Hey, aquatic.

I see Hill as our 6th man for now.
Collison and George will start. Then depending on matchups/game performance i see Hill comming in to replace one of them .

Hill will probable be getting 25-30 mins per game

paulgeorge24 wrote:man you're smoking somethin awful if you think PGeorge should be a 6th man.

Just to be clear, I did write that I'd like George Hill to be the sixth man, not Paul George. As I said, I think Paul George should start. But I also think he'd be a good sixth man should the Pacers decide to use him that way.

Pual should start he is the future of the pacers along with roy Hibbert.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2nv3DKnhSY&feature=related[/youtube]

I've watched nearly all of the Spurs games ever since George Hill got drafted so I'm going to use this an excuse to post up my thoughts. He's a combo guard thats better suited to being an aggressive scorer and defender than a traditional PG. Hill expanded his offensive game each season in the league and has developed a solid midrange jumper and expanded his 3 point game beyond just the corners. Athletically he's quick and has picked up a few of Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili's moves like their floaters.

Defensively he's versatile and even bothered Dirk Nowitzki last year to the point where Dirk picked up cheap frustration fouls on him in a playoffs elimination game. One of George Hill's highlight games defensively this season was against Kobe Bryant and again frustrated him to the point of picking up a cheap foul and even exchanged some words (all stuff you want from your defender):



Off the court he's active in the community and is an overall class act. Unfortunately on the court he lacks the size and at times the aggression to to maximize his talents but playing for Indiana and hopefully having more freedom will improve that. He was the Spurs 4th option and has a winning mentality; he's more than willing to sit on the bench and do the dirty work when he does get on the court.

I find it ironic that San Antonio fans are the ones defending our hometown player, as I do the same with Jeff Foster, a product of San Antonio. I have stated a few times, since the riot in the Hills, that I would like to see Foster sent to his home state of Texas. I think he'd be a great addition to the front court, primarily because he would alleviate a substantial amount of pressure off of Tim. Jeff is country strong and proved it against the Bulls. I know he will smack the hell out of Kobe in the playoffs, because he did it to the MVP and Deng.

Anyway, since we got you here, would you (Spurs fan) have any interest in a s&t for him? Nothing substantial, just what you think he is worth.... At this point I believe money is not a factor with him, seriously. I believe he'll consider Indy 1st, and then his hometown, or another top-flight contender.

^^ Well, Spurs fans love George Hill. His teammates love him. Pop loves him so much.
I love it when they play the Lakers, George Hill never backs down to Kobe.
It was a shocker because i really thought Parker was the one on the table. But they could've seen a better scenario in taking in Kawhi Leonard and sending out Hill instead.

When i read the draft grades and draft reviews, some "experts" graded us like morons for sending out a lottery projected player for a back-up. But a vast majority of knowledgeable people were very impressed of what Larry and the guys did.
How can it be wrong? If you sum it all up, it looked like we drafted the present day George Hill.

Jason Terry was a backup for the Mavs, but he was one of their most important players, so that really shouldn't play into it. Hill will give us another scorer off the bench, and his ability to defend smaller guards like Rose and Monta Ellis (both of whom tore us up last year) is only an added bonus. I expect in late game situations, he'll be in the lineup.

Do you think drafting Hill had a lot to do with the chicago series? Do Pacers believe Hill could be the guard that can keep up with rose?

^ Well they traded for him. And no I don't think so, since PG did a pretty good job of guarding Rose. I think the idea was to get more scoring from the 2nd unit with the ability to spot start if needed and not lose anything. Like our Jason Terry.

I think the trade for him makes a lot of sense. He is a proven scorer when needed with experience. He plays aggressive defense and will get into anyone's face (Kobe). He's also not afraid to take a last shot so if the first options aren't open, he will step up and at least give a good attempt.

I wonder how much it's gonna cost to resign him? 5 yr/ 25 mill is my max. I think you'll find it fits with the new c.b.a.

Boneman2 wrote:I wonder how much it's gonna cost to resign him? 5 yr/ 25 mill is my max. I think you'll find it fits with the new c.b.a.

It depends on how soon his contract is up. But 4-8 million (spread) sounds about right.