In support of Brian Hill - please comment if you support him and why?

[ball junkie 277]

quote:

Originally posted by emory889:

I dont think it was Otis that was influencing the Jameer situation. Otis wanted JJ to play and we saw how that worked out.

 

Emory, in your opinion, why did Brian continue to play him and when the season ended the first words out of his mouth was we need an up-grade at the point?

 

I'm sure you are aware of VanderWeide himself saying we need to re-think how we use a 5'10 point guard.

[Mr Charisma 0]

quote:

Originally posted by ball junkie:

quote:

Originally posted by emory889:

I dont think it was Otis that was influencing the Jameer situation. Otis wanted JJ to play and we saw how that worked out.

 

Emory, in your opinion, why did Brian continue to play him and when the season ended the first words out of his mouth was we need an up-grade at the point?

 

I'm sure you are aware of VanderWeide himself saying we need to re-think how we use a 5'10 point guard.

 

We'll see if Emory agrees, but my feeling is that Brian didn't like ANY of the PGs he had available, and considered Jameer 'the lesser of 4 evils'.

 

And he may very well be right on this issue, but he was never willing to change the way the offense was run to see if he could get better production from that position.

[Emory889 353]

quote:

Originally posted by ball junkie:

quote:

Originally posted by emory889:

I dont think it was Otis that was influencing the Jameer situation. Otis wanted JJ to play and we saw how that worked out.

 

Emory, in your opinion, why did Brian continue to play him and when the season ended the first words out of his mouth was we need an up-grade at the point?

 

I'm sure you are aware of VanderWeide himself saying we need to re-think how we use a 5'10 point guard.

 

I believe it was because Brian Hill is incapable of change. He never made a single adjustment to his starting lineup the entire season except when injuries forced his hand. Hill is saying the point guard position needs improvement but if the new season started today Hill would still have Jameer in the starting lineup. Have you noticed that throughout the season when Hill did make adjustments to his rotations (who came off the bench) he never stuck with the adjustments more than a few games? It didn't even matter if the adjustments worked or not he just didn't feel comfortable sticking with them.

 

I lend no credence to Hill saying he wants a new point guard. This is the same guy that wouldn't start Penny Hardaway until Skiles was traded and the same guy that said Mike Bibby would never be a good point guard. Jameer might not be the answer but I'll wait to see how he does in another coaches system. Knowing Hill he probably doesn't like any of his point guards.

 

LOL, great minds think alike Mr. Charisma.

[Knappy 0]

 

Here you say something that merits attention.

 

The reason the fire Brian brigade stays on this subject matter is the common belief that until we move Brian, no real progress will be made and that the longer he is there, the higher the chance we will regress and lose the good players we have now.

 

Do you agree that if you saw something you felt was imperative for the success of the team, you would be passionate about it?

 

Great quote En Fuego - you capsilize my points above - I see us regressing under Brian Hill, losing good players, we already have people saying Jameer sucks and he doesn't - why do I bring up Jameer - because he is being picked at the most - Dwight had a bad year too, but he is not being picked on that much.

 

I am passionate about Brian Hill being fired as I agree it is imperative not only to the success of the team, but imperative for this team so that it doesn't blow up and we are worse off than an expansion team.

 

Great post En Fuego.

[Knappy 0]

quote:

Originally posted by ball junkie:

quote:

Originally posted by emory889:

I dont think it was Otis that was influencing the Jameer situation. Otis wanted JJ to play and we saw how that worked out.

 

Emory, in your opinion, why did Brian continue to play him and when the season ended the first words out of his mouth was we need an up-grade at the point?

 

I'm sure you are aware of VanderWeide himself saying we need to re-think how we use a 5'10 point guard.

 

Ball Junkie, both Otis and Vanderweide are big on Jameer and rightfully so. That slow offense having to feed the ball into Dwight 75% of the time with no ball movement and no offensive plan Jameer cannot succeed in that system. Both Vanderweide and Otis say it as well. So, they may have had some influence on Brian Hill.

 

Junkie, did we play a fast paced game to see how Jameer could play in that style of play. Did you ever look at what he did in college - did they play a slow half court game in college?

 

Give the guy a break he can play, but Steve Nash wouldn't be that good if he played BHill's style of play - he would be rendered to being an average player at best.

 

Until Jameer is given a chance with a new coach I don't think it is fair to evaluate him. He'll do well somewhere and I hope it is hear, but Brian Hill will blow this team up - why do you want him back? That I don't understand.

 

Junkie if we told you to play basketball, but you could only post up or dunk - you would be in trouble - you may be good, but I don't think you can dunk. I guess you don't see the same thing that I do - I think that if you have a Ferrari and you ask it to go slower than the speed limit always you'll never know what it is capable of and you know what it probably isn't as comfortable as that oldsmobile.

 

Let the guy play - let Jameer run.

[Marc Acres 3:16 418]

Since we are talking about this anyway I'll throw this question out there. If we are going to give Hill another chance to see what he can do with a better team why not give him 2 more seasons? Why not 3 more seasons? It's not likely that we will get both a scorer and a PG that can defend and run a half court offense all in the offseason so we will not have a perfect roster next year either.

 

How many chances does he need to show us the same thing over and over again. Regardless of who Hill has at his disposal, he will still be the same coach with the same tendancies.

 

JVG was just fired for being unable to adapt and help his team progress. First he didn't have a decent PG so they got Rafer Alston. Then he needed character guys so they get him Battier, then Tracy and Yao weren't healthy, so they got healthy for the playoffs. The same thing happened because he is what he is, an old school coach for an old school style that doesn't work anymore. I didn't see Houston giving him another chance while they go out and look for an upgrade at the 4.

[ball junkie 277]

Marc, I want to respond to just one part of your post because know matter what I say about the rest it wouldn't matter cause your mind is already made up.

 

You think Rafer Alston is a good point guard? You know where Houston got him or the player himself came from? I used to watch him on those And1 Mix Tape shows ESPN showed for entertainment. That my friend is not basketball! There's a lot more to playing competitive basketball in the NBA then what you do in an And1 Mix Tape.

 

Those guys are hilarious.

 

Maybe Houston needs to up-grade their point guard position too.

 

Marc, one more thing. If Magic management decides to bring Brian back there isn't anything I can do about it or anybody else for that matter. What good does it do to keep re-hashing the same things over and over. I happen to believe we are gonna have a much better record next year cause we'll have better players and our young players will be another year older. Regardless of the coach!

[ball junkie 277]

quote:

Originally posted by emory889:

quote:

Originally posted by ball junkie:

quote:

Originally posted by emory889:

I dont think it was Otis that was influencing the Jameer situation. Otis wanted JJ to play and we saw how that worked out.

 

Emory, in your opinion, why did Brian continue to play him and when the season ended the first words out of his mouth was we need an up-grade at the point?

 

I'm sure you are aware of VanderWeide himself saying we need to re-think how we use a 5'10 point guard.

 

I believe it was because Brian Hill is incapable of change. He never made a single adjustment to his starting lineup the entire season except when injuries forced his hand. Hill is saying the point guard position needs improvement but if the new season started today Hill would still have Jameer in the starting lineup. Have you noticed that throughout the season when Hill did make adjustments to his rotations (who came off the bench) he never stuck with the adjustments more than a few games? It didn't even matter if the adjustments worked or not he just didn't feel comfortable sticking with them.

 

I lend no credence to Hill saying he wants a new point guard. This is the same guy that wouldn't start Penny Hardaway until Skiles was traded and the same guy that said Mike Bibby would never be a good point guard. Jameer might not be the answer but I'll wait to see how he does in another coaches system. Knowing Hill he probably doesn't like any of his point guards.

 

LOL, great minds think alike Mr. Charisma.

 

 

On the adjustments from the point guard position I tend to agree with you. I actually felt Arroyo was playing much better basketball after his benching. I didn't understand why he didn't play more because he was helping the team more by just not making so many bad decisions. That is why I made the earlier comment about the possibility of Otis forcing his hand. VanderWeides comments were fact. I in fact started a thread about it.

 

Now, in reference to your comments about Brian's point guards and his early days with the Magic and his stint at coaching in Vancouver.

 

I remember the team you are talking about with Skiles and Penny. I went to quite a few games that year. During Penny's first season I don't remember anyone crticizing Brian for starting Skiles. Skiles was one tough SOB! He also was fantastic at facillitating an offense! My memory from that season was most people knew Penny was a far superior athlete and would eventually be the man. Everyone knew that Skiles job was to teach Penny all the tricks of the trade. I think Scott did a darn good job too. I don't see anything wrong with that coaching decision.

 

Now, your other reference was Mike Bibby. First off, that franchise was doomed from the start. For obvious reasons. You are not the first person I have seen post that Brian said he(Bibby) wasn't ever going to be any good. Is it possible with the help of a computer to search old archives from that far back and show me a quote where Brian Hill said Mike Bibby was never gonna be any good?

 

I'm 45 years old so I remember those days fairly well. I don't ever remember seeing that quote.

[Emory889 353]

I'm trying to google it BJ. I did find this from the archive in the meantime.

 

quote:

VANCOUVER -- The tangled web that is the Vancouver Grizzlies took another twist Thursday when Brian Hill was fired as coach and replaced by assistant Lionel Hollins.

With the NBA club alternating between losing tight games in the dying moments and being blown out early, general manager Stu Jackson said he was left with no choice.

 

"Our team over the past weeks has underachieved and not played to it's potential," Jackson said. "Part of our decision to make a change was in an effort to give this team every opportunity to grow.

 

"When it became apparent we weren't getting that growth, we arrived at the decision."

 

While Hill, 52, took the bullet for a team that has a 4-18 record and one victory in its last 16 games, he's just the symptom of the disease of futility that has gripped the club during its five-year history.

 

Hollins, a veteran of 22 seasons as a player and coach, is the Grizzlies' fourth head coach. He takes over a squad that was a league-worst 8-42 last season, has never won more than 19 games in a campaign and has had six double-digit losing streaks during its existence.

 

"It gets tiring losing," centre Bryant (Big Country) Reeves, the first player drafted by Vancouver, said with a sigh. "It's no fun.

 

"This is all brought about by not winning. That brings turmoil around. It's tough to deal with. It's the fifth year we've been here and we haven't had any success."

 

As bad as things are on the floor, they are even more confusing in the boardroom.

 

The team was embarrassed this year when Jackson drafted guard Steve Francis second overall in June, even though the Maryland star made it clear he didn't want to play in Vancouver. Francis eventually forced a trade to Houston, which stocked the Grizzlies with young talented players such as shooting guard Michael Dickerson and power forward Othella Harrington.

 

The Grizzlies are also an orphaned team. Owner John McCaw, tired of losing millions of dollars, thought he had sold the club in September to Missouri businessman Bill Laurie. But the NBA intervened and asked the deal be restructured to give some assurances Laurie won't quickly move the franchise to St. Louis, where he already owns the NHL Blues and the Kiel Center.

 

While the Toronto Raptors are viewed as an uptown team that has improved and is challenging for a playoff spot, the Grizzlies have become the bumpkin country cousins, losing games, bleeding fan support and snickered at around the league.

 

"The ambiguity around ownership is something we cannot control right now," said Jackson. "What we can control is how our team performs, that's what our decision today was based upon.

 

"We can try to focus on our team in an effort to excite our fans once again."

 

Hollins, 46, played 10 years in the NBA with five teams and won a championship with Portland in 1977. He spent 12 years as an assistant coach, seven with Phoenix and the last five with Vancouver.

 

The team he takes over has the most talent and depth in its history, but often appears to play without emotion or purpose.

 

"I'm going to try and give the team a little bit of my personality, try to impose my will on the team, so we're more tenacious, more intense over long periods of time," said Hollins.

 

"I want us to be consistent with our tenacity, with our competitive level. I'm not talking about just in the games but in practice as well."

 

Hill, a friendly, easy going coach with the media, was volatile at courtside, bellowing instructions at his players.

 

"He was a very hands-on guy," said Reeves. "He was coaching every play.

 

"It was a situation where we just weren't getting done what we were capable of doing. It was time for something to change."

 

Hill, in the third year of a four-year deal with $1.8 million US annually, was angry with the firing.

 

"He disagreed with the decision," Jackson said. "He wanted and was due an explanation as to why.

 

"We discussed that, agreed to disagree and parted ways."

 

Many critics have suggested Jackson, the only general manager the team has known, also should be made accountable.

 

"The decisions was not made to buy myself or anyone any time," said Jackson, who is in the final year of his contract.

 

"I'm entrusted to make decisions in the best interests of this ball club. That was the pure reason behind making this decision. How much time I have ultimately falls in ownership's hands."

 

 

http://slam.canoe.ca/BasketballVancouverArchive/dec16_str.html

[Emory889 353]

Well it was hard to find one BJ. It was almost 10 years ago but I managed to find this interesting article. Apparently Hill was trying to play Bibby at the 2 guard for some idiotic reason. Maybe he didn't think Bibby was a point guard?

 

quote:

Change doesn't suit Bibby well

The Province

(April 8, 1999)

Lowell Ullrich, Sports Reporter The Province

You couldn't blame Mike Bibby for being a bit dazed and confused Wednesday at GM Place.

 

Not because of the brilliant screen set by teammate Cherokee Parks that Bibby plowed into early in the Grizzlies' 87-84 loss to the Denver. It was the second straight game the rookie point guard became a rookie shooting guard.

 

Just as running with a full head of steam into friendly fire was a relatively new NBA experience, so was playing a new position down the stretch. And a player who chooses his words carefully at the best of times was even more careful after the game

 

"It was sort of out of nowhere," Bibby said when asked about the switch in positions.

 

Coach Brian Hill first paired Bibby at off-guard with DeJuan Wheat Tuesday in Portland, when Wheat played nearly the entire fourth quarter.

 

"I generally don't like to play two small guards out there at the same time, but I wouldn't be afraid to do it," Hill said before Wednesday's game.

 

He wasn't all right, and Denver's Nick Van Exel scored 11 fourth-quarter points on Wheat and Bibby, including the winning trey with 27.8 seconds left.

 

Moving to a new position is no holiday, but another young player who has made the switch says you can't let the move get to you.

 

"When I came in the league two-guard was a disease," said Denver sophomore Chauncey Billups. "You're used to having the ball in your hands as a point guard. If I could tell Mike anything I'd just say play how you always play."

 

Bibby and the Grizzlies were too dazed to take advice from anyone after yet another humbling loss.

 

http://www.geocities.com/armsteadj/suit.htm

[ball junkie 277]

Those are interesting articles Emory and I appreciate you researching them.

 

But those articles don't even resemble Brian making the comments that many people on these boards have accused him of when he was quoted as saying Mike Bibby would not be a good player. It sounds like Brian was doing some experimentation here looking for something to help the Grizzlies get a win.

 

Something that I think everyone on these boards wanted him to do this year. Try something different!

[michelle7 0]

quote:

Originally posted by andie:

I'll slit my throat if BHill comes back.

 

Ditto.