Point Guard needed.

celtspacers · Post #1 » by **celtspacers** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:40 pm

Pacers are never winning a championship until George Hill is replaced at the point. His matador defense is always going to have the big guys in foul trouble. He dribbles to much. lets shot clock get down to far before getting plays started.

Wizop · Post #2 » by **Wizop** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:12 pm

I see the and1 button but is there a minus1 button I'm missing? we've had this discussion before and most of us feel he fits our system. now if you are writing in the aftermath of the Phoenix melt down, we're certainly all disappointed but there was plenty of blame to go around.

EuroPacer · Post #3 » by **EuroPacer** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:23 pm

Yeah, I don't see a reason to put individual blame on Hill. I did pick him out as a key-reason for our very poor game, but for some reason guys just don't show up from time to time, it happens. GH is also the guard that has been instrumental in getting the record we have.

mikepacernation · Post #4 » by **mikepacernation** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:25 pm

I really don't think hill had much to do with the record we have. Yes he may have helped us win a couple but not that many.. The dudes not very good who is way to streaky of a shooter. In my opinion I think he not good at all and he's over paid

mikepacernation · Post #5 » by **mikepacernation** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:27 pm

I mean heck I think ish smith burned G Hill lol

Starkiller · Post #6 » by **Starkiller** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:38 pm

This again?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using RealGM Forums mobile app

8305 · Post #7 » by **8305** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:56 pm

Assuming the Pacers resign Stephenson its debatable whether they can afford to keep George Hill. So does the OP think George Hill can be upgraded at a lower salary?

Post #8 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:27 pm

celtspacers wrote:Pacers are never winning a championship until George Hill is replaced at the point. His matador defense is always going to have the big guys in foul trouble. He dribbles to much. lets shot clock get down to far before getting plays started.

One game. We're doing pretty well with him all year long. Don't let one let down force a massive change and upheaval to a roster that can win a championship.

SmashMouthRod · Post #9 » by **SmashMouthRod** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:43 pm

I think Hill is pretty good off the ball. But he isnt a very good point guard. I do believe that he fits because Stephenson has demonstrated the ability to play the point guard or at least handle the duties. He is overpaid to quote MikePacerNation because there are cheaper point guards around the league who are as good or better. Kyle Lowry and Jarrett Jack to name a couple. Kyle Lowry is signed for 4 years / $23.46 million with the Toronto Raptors. Lowry is making $6.21 million this season. Hill 5 for 40 and 8 mill this season. Other coaches such as George Karl has said as much; stating that if or when Hill produces 10pts and 7 ast consistently the Pacers beat everyone. If u take away Lance and stick in Batman; how consistently can Hill manufacture that type of production?

mikepacernation · Post #10 » by **mikepacernation** » Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:29 pm

Why haven't the pacers ever tried to play lance at point PG at shooting guard and Danny and at the 3? Could be a interesting combo

Starkiller · Post #11 » by **Starkiller** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:32 am

To be honest, while I do like George Hill, and think he is a positive on this team, if it had to be, I would like Lance at PG, PG at SG, and DG at SF. I think we can win just as much. Lance does everything Hill does but 3's and FT's better.

Moooose · Post #12 » by **Moooose** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:42 am

Lance and George Hill plays irregardless of position. Both can play point guard, Lance is just more creative with the ball. George Hill complements Lance, IMO.

8305 · Post #13 » by **8305** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:42 pm

I'm not ready to see Lance as a full time pg. His decisions are still way too inconsistent. There are stretchs when Lance gets out of hand and George Hill has a way of knowing he needs to take charge of things.

mikepacernation · Post #14 » by **mikepacernation** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:22 pm

Anyways I love this team.. I think we can beat the Heat this year an go to the finals!!!!

Boneman2 · Post #15 » by **Boneman2** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 4:39 am

I said this two years ago before Bird gave him his contract. Even today GHill admits that he is not a PG., and his putrid stats back it up.

His skill-set is that of a versatile bench role-player.

Wizop · Post #16 » by **Wizop** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:13 pm

granted GHill is a combo guard. Watson is too which should tell you something. we could have signed a more classic point guard than Watson had we thought that was what was needed. actually Sloan is more of a pure point guard than either Hill or Watson and yet he sits. I think that should tell you that neither Bird nor Vogel thinks a pure point guard is what this team needs. you can disagree but don't hold your breath waiting for us to trade for one.

8305 · Post #17 » by **8305** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 4:47 pm

Boneman2 wrote:I said this two years ago before Bird gave him his contract. Even today GHill admits that he is not a PG., and his putrid stats back it up.

His skill-set is that of a versatile bench role-player.

When the Pacers acquired him I don't think they saw Paul George, Lance Stephenson and Roy HIbbert blowing up to the degree they have and commanding the salaries they will or have already received. I don't think they saw David West becoming the heart and soul of the team either. In the meantime George Hill got paid. I'm not saying George Hill is over paid because while he's not a natural point he in many ways is effective at the position as the Pacers define it.

Now, I do think given everything that has transpired (the cost of the big 4 and the role of a point guard with this group) the Pacers have to ask themselves can they afford to pay whoever plays the point in the starting lineup 8 mil per year?

Boneman2 · Post #18 » by **Boneman2** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:20 pm

8305 wrote:
Boneman2 wrote:I said this two years ago before Bird gave him his contract. Even today GHill admits that he is not a PG., and his putrid stats back it up.

His skill-set is that of a versatile bench role-player.

When the Pacers acquired him I don't think they saw Paul George, Lance Stephenson and Roy HIbbert blowing up to the degree they have and commanding the salaries they will or have already received. I don't think they saw David West becoming the heart and soul of the team either. In the meantime George Hill got paid. I'm not saying George Hill is over paid because while he's not a natural point he in many ways is effective at the position as the Pacers define it.

Now, I do think given everything that has transpired (the cost of the big 4 and the role of a point guard with this group) the Pacers have to ask themselves can they afford to pay whoever plays the point in the starting lineup 8 mil per year?

Regardless if Bird saw Paul, Lance, Roy, or David getting paid in the future, committing 8/per x 5 for a role player is insane. And I'm not speaking in hindsight.

I do agree with you that our need for a true point is minimized because Paul and Lance have great vision and passing ability. Without question I feel comfortable if Watson had to start, or like someone else mentioned, why not roll with Lance/PG/Granger/West/Hibbert in spurts. GHill needs a little competition to push himself to improve.

mikepacernation · Post #19 » by **mikepacernation** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:29 pm

I agree I would be happy to see Hill go out and play lance at PG and Danny at SF and PG at SG. I think that unit would be really effective

8305 · Post #20 » by **8305** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:47 pm

Boneman2 wrote:
8305 wrote:
Boneman2 wrote:I said this two years ago before Bird gave him his contract. Even today GHill admits that he is not a PG., and his putrid stats back it up.

His skill-set is that of a versatile bench role-player.

When the Pacers acquired him I don't think they saw Paul George, Lance Stephenson and Roy HIbbert blowing up to the degree they have and commanding the salaries they will or have already received. I don't think they saw David West becoming the heart and soul of the team either. In the meantime George Hill got paid. I'm not saying George Hill is over paid because while he's not a natural point he in many ways is effective at the position as the Pacers define it.

Now, I do think given everything that has transpired (the cost of the big 4 and the role of a point guard with this group) the Pacers have to ask themselves can they afford to pay whoever plays the point in the starting lineup 8 mil per year?

Regardless if Bird saw Paul, Lance, Roy, or David getting paid in the future, committing 8/per x 5 for a role player is insane. And I'm not speaking in hindsight.

I do agree with you that our need for a true point is minimized because Paul and Lance have great vision and passing ability. Without question I feel comfortable if Watson had to start, or like someone else mentioned, why not roll with Lance/PG/Granger/West/Hibbert in spurts. GHill needs a little competition to push himself to improve.

I'll be surprised if you ever see Lance, Paul, Danny, David and Roy on the floor together. Even in Miami where you have Lebron as a primary ball handler you've almost always got either Cole or Chalmers on the floor. Something about having a guy charged with pg responsibilities on the floor all the time even if he'll be playing off the ball quite a bit.

George Hill is getting a lot of heat these days over the meger stat line he puts up. But, consider he plays with three usage alpha dogs and you still have Hibbert who needs to get some touches. I don't care who the Pacer point guard is the stats aren't going to be that impressive.