Curious George: It works, because honestly, nobody knows who in God's name he is. I'm patenting it and locking it down this instant. It will henceforth be his nickname until he leaves the team, either by retirement or otherwise. That said, these are my thoughts on Curious George..
Part of today's sports fan culture is the draft delirium. I, myself, was part of the madness the minute Hill was selected. Innately, I think that we all are prone to sometimes write GM checks that our basketball minds can't cash. I tend to always err on the side of picking somebody I can actually identify in my pretend drafts, but I also realize at the end of the day that this is the GM's job: To know every fact available and make the move he deems best for the team, with the best available player.
George Hill isn't Mario Chalmers. He didn't go to a big school, nor did he win a national championship. Hell, I'm willing to bet we drafted a guy who (in some time since the National Championship) has PRETENDED TO BE Mario Chalmers and his three point shot.
George Hill isn't Chris Douglas Roberts. Sorry Stamp... IUPUI didn't have the nation wondering if they would go undefeated, and they weren't victimized by woeful a FT% or Mario Chalmers' "God Heave". Chris Douglas Roberts probably made more money as a high school senior than IUPUI's head coach makes in a season.
George Hill also isn't Donte Green. He isn't a raw athletic swingman who has "all the tools, but no key to the tool box", as Jay Bilas eloquently put it.
What we do know about George Hill is this, and pretty much only this: The Spurs were happy to get him. For as frustrating as our front office has been at times throughout recent years, you have to realize that it isn't like no other team in the league doesn't walk the same line RC walks. Shoot, how do you think the Clippers feel. That's all I'm going to say about their drafts picks since forever.
While I was admittedly as shocked as the rest of y'all at the relative obscurity of our pick (even the sports guy had no clue...), I have to admit that, hours later, I feel ok with it. NONE of us knew who the hell Tony Parker or Emmanuel Ginobili were, and I am certain of this, because no one in the REST OF THE LEAGUE knew either. My point here is this: We sure as hell could have done worse.
Given what we know about this guy, WHEN he plays (make no doubt about it, we're keeping him) he's versatile enough to do several things. For the Spurs, that's a good thing. Here we have a guy that played the 1 and the 2 in school, so he can back up TP in spots, and also fill in the scoresheet from elsewhere on the court. He is reputedly a "tenacious defender", so we have to assume that he doesn't mind the dirty work, and it will be nice to hopefully have someone on the court that isn't a liability on one end or the other (cough, Bowen).
Since I have been following the Spurs, our milk money has come from our stars, to be sure. More so however, it comes from having the right guys doing the things that we need. Every championship we own has the fingerprints of somebody not named Duncan, Ginobili, or Parker on it. Guys that have fought for that one loose ball we HAD to have, or poked away a steal right when we needed it most. George Hill may not be our next star, but as long as he can at least be that guy we all remember doing something when we needed it most, he'll be just fine in my book.
But then again, maybe he will be our next star... you never know...