Started By
Message

re: So how bad does the Solomon Hill signing look now?

Posted on 1/20/17 at 6:03 am to
Posted by lighter345
Member since Jan 2009
11864 posts
Posted on 1/20/17 at 6:03 am to
That site made me dizzy.
Posted by Machine
Earth
Member since May 2011
6001 posts
Posted on 1/20/17 at 8:54 am to
every time i play 2k17 i start from the preseason so i can keep the roster in tact but move those scrubs hill and moore to minimum contracts.

that's how bad it looks
Posted by ghost2most
Member since Mar 2012
6583 posts
Posted on 1/20/17 at 11:58 am to
Said it then, will repeat it now: Signing a 4 ppg scorer to a contract worth NFL QB money was effing retarded.
Posted by corndeaux
Member since Sep 2009
9634 posts
Posted on 1/21/17 at 8:03 am to
quote:

Demps is really awful at valuing and evaluating the SF position


quote:

demps has a poor track record of bringing in low-usage players and expecting similar/better production at much higher usage rates


i would (and did) argue that Hill was never going to be the SF everyone wanted. he was always more of a 4 on offense. the hope was maybe he could develop into a better shooter and playmaker. but he's not a "3." to me, the failure of the Hill signing (so far) is that i dont think he can defend well enough at the 4.


i think Demps just doesnt know how to build a roster that fits together. Jester needs to send him our Z Graph work

quote:

the guy I wanted Ian Clark on the minimum


he's finally adapted


not sure how Clark (6'3" 175lbs w/ no playmaking skills) factors into a wing discussion. he's a small SG. now Clark for a minimum v Galloway or even Moore? that's more interesting.

This post was edited on 1/21/17 at 8:09 am
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 2Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram