CXbby, you are right again on PPat along with the Brooks vs Lowry debate. Props to you. I will rep you if I can.
Yeah I feel your vibe. I can see the fans getting so caught up in their choice of player, they will turn against the other guy. We've see it anytime there is healthy competition for playing time - suddenly a disturbing tendency to become obscenely nasty against the other guy ensues. Let's use this time to remind people here that we are Rocket fans first. It isn't about justifying our choice as potential starting forward, but about winning games. Ultimately, the coach decides who earned playing time - they are there at the practices because that is their job. They know the offense they are running, they know who missed their spot on defense.
I used to think the same thing, but now I'm not so sure after seeing those monster jams that Patterson did the past few games. Plus he's show a consistency trend. It looks like he grew wings and soared over the court to emphatically get those dunks. Patterson looks legit and strong - dude has the poise of a seasoned veteran. Hill on the other hand looks lanky sometimes - but it also has to do he started playing basketball later in life. But I am looking forward to the following line up. Hayes Scola Patterson (Rick insists that Patterson can play small forward too) Martin Lowry :grin: Rick believes that Patrick Patterson can legitimately play Small Forward. The following quote if from the chronicle... http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bk/bkn/7485215.html "I'm going to try a few things," Adelman said. "I'm going to look to see if there's times we can throw Patrick (at small forward). I believe he can play there. It's just offensively, how do you use him? And (Sunday) I put Goran in with Kyle and with Courtney (Lee). There is a lot on Courtney's shoulder if Chase can't play, because he's our small forward now."
I feel like you and I come from different sides and are heading in different directions. When we traded Tmac away I watched all the knicks film I could find on Hill and I was so unimpressed. The truth is there wasn't a whole bunch of film to watch but enough IMO to write him off as another Hilton Armstrong. I was pleasantly surprised to find that he was more than that. ANd his physical could translate into some blocks and rebounds that Chuck Hayes would never get and an outside Jumper that he will never have. This is not a comparison of the current Hayes to hill. Remember I am the guy who thought Hill was just a throw in. But Hill has impressed me. Not to the degree that I see him as a starter, but I have seen him come in and do some things defensively that I never expected and he is a big with some athleticism and those are hard things to come by in this league. Yeah Hill IMO will never be a great player but he could become a good role player for years to come if he is brought along properly. As for comparing him to Patrick it's waste as Patrick is already better and he is just getting started. But I expect Hill could be a solid contributor ala role player for years to come. He has already showed more than glimpses of that and the way he stopped Jefferson on a couple of plays showed he can do it. I expect him to take most of Miller's minutes next year. So I see the player who I thought was worthless to the team as having some value and perhaps you see a player who you thought might have more value to the as having less and with little chance of improvement. It's like we both see the same player and have the same opinion only I saw him as starting off in crapdom and already he has shown me stuff to make me believe he won't finish there and you see him being traded away while we can get something for him because he is headed down the path of crapdom.
^^^ I totally agree with OMR. I wouldn't write Hill of just yet. If he has the right attitude and work ethic, with good coaching he can be a good player, maybe a Camby-type of player.
First off, nice post, and I respect your opinion on this. Only thing I'd correct is what you think my expectations were. I look at him in two ways, his value as an asset, and Jordan Hill the basketball player. As far as the basketball player I did not have high expectations, at all. In fact I had no expectations since I never saw him play. I remember Morey saying how Jordan was ranked top 10 on his draft board based on talent alone, but drop to the 20s when you factored in everything else- mentality, motor etc. That immediately was a red flag for me. After watching him for close to 2 years now I just don't see a "winning player". His innate cognitive ability is below average, which makes him a step slow on offense and defense. The only way to overcome this is through superior effort 110% of the time. Unfortunately for Hill, his shaky motor is his other major down fall. The irony of it is that one is probably the cause of the other. It seems it is difficult for him to go all out when he has to think. This IMO is why he plays his most effective ball next to Miller, where he doesn't have to think and just react. As far as value as an asset, that is where wanting to trade him comes from. I do not see him as a "throw in" in the Mcgrady trade. We insisted on including him while NY refused until the 12th hour. This isn't because we thought he was such a great player- Morey ranked him pretty low. This isn't because NY thought he was such a great player- they barely played him with their coach calling him a "bad rookie". It is because he was still the 8th pick of the draft and still had perceived value around the league. His value is why we acquired him and his value is why I think we should/will deal him. Because Jordan Hill the basketball player isn't very good, at all. Unfortunately it seems the rest of the league might have found out as well.
This thread is comparing Hill and Patterson. If you can't tell by now who has the higher upside then I don't know what to say. In the famous words of the fat lady, she has sung. She has sung so much she's gone platinum.
I think some of you guys are undervaluing Hill's basketball acumen. when he had his nice run like patterson is having now, he displayed good hands around the basket. he displayed decent passing at least he had a good rapport with Chase. he is not a raw physical specimen. however i do agree that his motor is questionable. they are different players, patterson is a more skilled post player. hill is a more up and down the floor finisher and weak side defender. to compare patterson's post game to hill's is unfair in that regard.
I voted for PatPat but to be honest, Jordan Hill has more upside because he's underachieving. PatPat's numbers are pedestrian for the season but that reflects more on his rookie status and Luis' veteran status/contract and Adelman's tendency (I guess most coach's tendency) to stick with the more known commodity (even if the more known commodity plays defense with an "oops! excuse me, was I in your way?") attitude. Once PatPat has the minutes, he'll be Da Beast. He'll get better, but most of the talent is there. Jordan Hill, on the other hand, hasn't combined skills and mindset.
Jordan Hill has never been on a run like Patrick Patterson is having now. I mean, compare ANY part of their games and Patterson comes out on top: Shooting -- Patterson Finishing -- Patterson Defending -- Patterson Shotblocking -- Patterson Rebounding -- Patterson FT% -- Hill Patrick Patterson is better than Jordan Hill at almost everything; I honestly can't think of one area of the game (outside FT%) where I'd rather have Hill. The closest I come is the numbers telling me that Hill is outrebounding Patterson, but my eyes tell me that no way is Hill a better rebounder. If the Rockets need to get a big rebound, I would feel much more comfortable with Patterson in the game than Hill. Simply put, Patterson is just so much more skilled than Hill -- there's a reason that I said that the person with the best basketball skills has the most upside. Measureables only get you so far.
Hill still has a higher upside due to height and athleticism, but he's unlikely to reach it due to brain and motor. Sorry, bro. Patrick Patterson, as a result, will become the better player.
It just doesn't make any sense to me why people only look at height/athleticism when discussing potential/upside. There is so much more that goes into it.
Stromile Swift has a higher upside than Kevin Love, because just imagine if Stromile acquired Love's motor and skills combined with his height and athleticism forming a super player!!! Is that the logic? Even though Stromile Swift had a 0% chance of actually acquiring said motor and skills? Makes no sense to me either.
Patterson's great for Hill's development. Pat is awesome but I really think his presence as Hill's fellow young big man will really light a fire under Jordan's butt to get him going. Especially since Pat's been doing so well so far. Pat's been so good that its almost unfair. Jordan will take note and push himself a little more and now he has someone to compare himself to.
