We know that there isn't much talent with him, but I just love his passion, heart, and effort he brings. If just half the team played with his energy, the buckeyes could be dangerous. Plus I don't think he is all that bad. Evan Turner is a decent ball handler but he is much more dangerous working off the ball. Anyone else for this idea?

The Buckeyes need a point guard that's a fact but if he is your starter that really only leaves three scores on the court.. He nor Dallas gives you much as far as scoing goes.

He has a lot of heart, but he is just not talented enough to go against a good team's starting pg.

Heart, desire, and effort only go so far in D1 basketball. I think he could do some positive things for the Bucks, but in my mind the negatives out weigh the positives.

Ohio State will be in for a tough year in the Big10 IMO, because they don't have a seasoned PG with talent, nor do that have a dominant scoring threat inside. Hill has great energy/effort, but he just isn't the Scooney Penn/Mike Conley mold as far as scoring or instincts, that the Buckeyes have had with their best teams in the last 10-12 years. As they pointed out during the game tonight, Turner is about as versatile as they come, but he is not a natural PG and it shows. He needs to be roaming free inside the arc. That's his game; a hybrid SG/SF mix that can do it all inside. The Bucks may be able to get by with him at PG against teams with equal or lesser talent, or lesser coaching, but against teams with equal/more talent and good coaching (i.e. North Carolina, Purdue, Michigan State, tournament teams) they will exploit that, just like they did tonight with Turner's 10 turnovers. And we have NO size inside. Lauderdale is a very good defender, and I like his "blue collar" attitude. But he has never been a guy that is going to be able to give you 12-15 per game from the post, and it's primarily due to his size. Teams that have several taller guys and/or substantial depth, will cancel him out on defense, and make him almost a non-factor (except for a few offensive boards) on offense.

Sorry for the rant, but that's how I see things; so to answer your question, I DO THINK Hill should be our PG, simply because it will allow Turner to return to a more natural position on the floor, where he can be the versatile "everything" that he's going to have to be for the Buckeyes to compete this year. If you leave him at PG, not only is your PG position not improving at all, but you are also taking away what was a strength last year, in keeping Turner from the position he excels in. I would say if OSU had even a decent post player to compliment Lauderdale, that could give you 10-12 a game, and a decent PG that could manage the game and give you 10 from the floor, and get to the foul line a few times a game, OSU would be considered a LEGITIMATE threat to challenge for the Big10. However, you can't be great in one area, but be subpar in two others, and expect to knock off Michigan State. Cuz it's their conference to lose. And that's what the Buckeye are right now. Great in the middle area, but game management and ball handling (PG) and down in the paint (F/C) they are severly lacking, and good teams will exploit that. It's like painting a target on you and telling other teams how to beat you. They'll be competitive, but I see a lot of problems that may lead to a less than stellar season than many people are hoping for/predicting. JMO.

Yes, PJ Hill should be the OSU starting PG. He handled the ball very well tonight against UNC. Much better than Turner did. I don't think Hill had any turnovers, opposed to Turner's 10. I just feel that red skin pride hit the nail on the head.....Hill at PG sends Turner back to his natural position and I believe the Buckeyes become an improved version of last year's team. Let's not forget, without Lighty and with PJ Hill running the point last year in the Big 10 tourney, they beat MSU by 10 points in the finals. This is a very talented team with Lighty healthy, but I just think they need to get back to last year's approach.

Great post Redskin. I agree with everything you said.

He is another question. If Hill becomes the starting point guard, who do you send to the bench? Diebler?

As you know, I said before and during the game tonight that OSU would struggle because of the PG position. Turner would be far more valuable playing off the ball, and it would lessen the feeling that he has to do everything.

However, I think that an OSU team with Turner at the point and the other four current starters is a better team than PJ Hill at the point and Turner playing off the ball.PJ Hill just isn't talented enough to be the starting point guard, and you lose a scoring threat by benching Diebler or Buford. Even though Buford looked bad tonight, he is a legitimate scoring threat that can take some of the pressure off of Turner. A line up with PJ Hill and Lauderdale at PG/C respectively is not the recipe to success.I say you have to play with the talent you have and let Turner run the point. Turner will cut down on his turnovers, as it was obvious he was pressing tonight. He will be fine.

I figured all the PANIC would set in if I came in here. lol No surprise.
Turner will be just FINE at the PG position. He forced too much last nite. He will learn.

Bottom line about last nites game.....OSU wasn't making shots. It was as SIMPLE as that. They became frustrated and lost their composure a little bit, thus the trying to force things.
I said before the game that OSU NEEDED Buford, Diebler and Turner to play well to win. Well, Buford was off big time and as mentioned, Turner started to force things too much. Diebler didn't get hot until second half. When all three aren't playing well, OSU is in trouble. But that won't happen often IMO.

I actually saw some good things, thought they played hard, MM defense wasn't too bad, and they battled on the boards. Lauderdale played a good game as well.
It really came down to making shots in the first half. UNC did, OSU didn't...dug a deep hole.

BTW, NO PJ at starting PG. He is good where he is, coming off the bench with his energy.
If you watched the game closely, MANY of Turners turnovers did NOT come from the PG position. They came after he received the ball elsewhere on the floor and tried to force it to the basket. He had at least 4 traveling calls, I know one TO came with a poor pass from out of bounds as well. He also had two charging fouls, which are turnovers as well. Definately NOT good, but most were not from playing the PG.

I think Hill needs more minutes at the PG position, but he isn't necessarily the answer.

Turner is not a PG, and I think it's an injustice that he's being asked to take on so many roles. I actually think he might hurt his draft stock this year because people are going to expect too much from him.

OSU's best 5 are:
Lauderdale
Lighty
Turner
Buford
Hill

With those five, you don't need Hill to run the point solely, but you need Turner to play off the ball more when they get into their sets.

And then you can bring in Diebler when you get down 15+ and he might have a set of balls by then and will start playing.

And the fact that OSU is relying on Madsen for minutes is sad. Guess Z and Kecman are not really going to help this team this year as Matta has zero confidence in them. When a 7 footer can't get minutes ahead of Madsen it makes me really scared as a fan.

thedynasty1998 wrote: I think Hill needs more minutes at the PG position, but he isn't necessarily the answer.

Turner is not a PG, and I think it's an injustice that he's being asked to take on so many roles. I actually think he might hurt his draft stock this year because people are going to expect too much from him.

OSU's best 5 are:
Lauderdale
Lighty
Turner
Buford
Hill

With those five, you don't need Hill to run the point solely, but you need Turner to play off the ball more when they get into their sets.

And then you can bring in Diebler when you get down 15+ and he might have a set of balls by then and will start playing.

And the fact that OSU is relying on Madsen for minutes is sad. Guess Z and Kecman are not really going to help this team this year as Matta has zero confidence in them. When a 7 footer can't get minutes ahead of Madsen it makes me really scared as a fan.

There is NO way Hill should start in front of Diebler. I know your a Diebler hater, but he opens up so much on the floor for Turner and Buford, its not funny. Hill cant' shoot outside, and teams know that. Can help off, play off of Hill which will clog the lane for Turner and let teams play Buford much tighter. Diebler was the player who go OSU back in the game last nite. Buford was 3-16 from the floor. If anyone was bad last nite, it was Buford who did absolutely nothing but miss shots.

HIll is perfect for coming off the bench.
People can say this and that and who should be where..but I'll gaurantee ONE thing, Turner will start EVERY game at the PG position this year. So this isn't even worth a discussion. Matta is not going to make some major change after ONE game, where as I said, it was as simple as OSU not shooting well last nite. No coach in their right mind would go making any kind of major change after one game....that against a top 10 team.

^^Well said centralbucksfan......Although I was initially upset with the turnovers and would like to see an expanded role for Hill, I agree with you that there is no need for major change right now. The chemistry of this starting 5 will continue to improve as the season progresses.

I like him. He's an influx of energy and gets after it on the defensive end of the floor.

I like Hill, but he's best playing 10-15 minutes a game as a high-intensity hustling defensive whiz. Play him too many minutes and his offensive shortcomings become more glaring. He's the perfect defensive-minded sub, but not a starter.

darbypitcher22 wrote: I like him. He's an influx of energy and gets after it on the defensive end of the floor.

I luv Hill as well. But fact of the matter is, he is NOT a starter or someone who should play more then 15-20 min per nite! His decision making with the ball is not always great(cost OSU NCAA last year), he is not a very good shooter nor can he handle the ball that great. He is what he is...a high energy guy who does play defense and gives the team an energy boost from the bench. He just isn't a very skilled player quite frankly. Matta is using him just as he should.

No way!! Our best lineup is:

Turner
Diebler
Buford
Lighty
Lauderdale

Turner didn't cost OSU the game last night. Not making open shots cost OSU the game. Not to mention, the length of Carolina will make passing and scoring at the rim very difficult for any team w/o an ELITE point man. I'd say half of Turners TO's were deflections by the Carolina big men. The only person that could possibly sit for Hill to start would be Lighty. He's just never going to be a scoring threat for OSU!

Diebler doesn't open up the floor as much as you want to give him credit for. And its a lot easier to make some shots when playing from behind because he doesn't have any pressure on him.

If Diebler isn't making shots then Hill does more for the team.

I would stick with the current starting line-up if I'm Thad. P.J. is an energy guy and it's nice to have energy guys coming off of the bench. And I have the feeling that P.J. handles coming off of the bench better than Diebler or Buford would.

P.J. OFF the bench 15 or 20 min thats it,the BEST starting 5 are on the floor.

Riders12 wrote: P.J. OFF the bench 15 or 20 min thats it,the BEST starting 5 are on the floor.

Turner's not a PG though. He's not even a true SG. He's more of a SF. And you're playing with your best 4 1/2 players on the floor with Turner running the point. Him playing out of position handicaps his ability and takes him away from where he SHOULD be on the floor. I would start Lauderdale, Turner, Buford, Diebler, and Hill. You also have more experience coming off the bench that way with Lighty instead of Hill. As I said in my previous post, OSU doesn't need a great PG, just a decent one. But playing your natural SF at the point isn't the answer. Hill will suffice.

And it doesn't matter HOW Turner turned the ball over ten times. The point is he did. And the more disturbing fact to me was not the turnovers. It was the fact that he didn't have a single assist. Your PG can't have zero assists for an entire game and expect to win much. OSU was settling for shots in the first half because they didn't have guard running the show that was able to get them into favorable matchups. They HAD to settle for those shots because they couldn't get any other ones. Some of that is attributed to a good, and long, Carolina D. But we did ourselves no favors helping them shut us down in the first half. Turner wasn't able to exploit his height advantage over the guy guarding him, so that didn't pay off.

thedynasty1998 wrote: Diebler doesn't open up the floor as much as you want to give him credit for. And its a lot easier to make some shots when playing from behind because he doesn't have any pressure on him.

If Diebler isn't making shots then Hill does more for the team.

Yes, in fact he does. If you watched the UNC game, they had someone litterally shadowing him all over the court. That defender is unable to slack off and help on Turner. Although UNC didn't have to worry about the help because of their size under the basket. Most teams don't have that luxury.
Try watching the game a little more closely and how hard they try to guard Diebler coming off of the baseline screens that OSU run for he and Buford. Its pretty evident.

Red_Skin_Pride wrote:

Riders12 wrote: P.J. OFF the bench 15 or 20 min thats it,the BEST starting 5 are on the floor.

Turner's not a PG though. He's not even a true SG. He's more of a SF. And you're playing with your best 4 1/2 players on the floor with Turner running the point. Him playing out of position handicaps his ability and takes him away from where he SHOULD be on the floor. I would start Lauderdale, Turner, Buford, Diebler, and Hill. You also have more experience coming off the bench that way with Lighty instead of Hill. As I said in my previous post, OSU doesn't need a great PG, just a decent one. But playing your natural SF at the point isn't the answer. Hill will suffice.

And it doesn't matter HOW Turner turned the ball over ten times. The point is he did. And the more disturbing fact to me was not the turnovers. It was the fact that he didn't have a single assist. Your PG can't have zero assists for an entire game and expect to win much. OSU was settling for shots in the first half because they didn't have guard running the show that was able to get them into favorable matchups. They HAD to settle for those shots because they couldn't get any other ones. Some of that is attributed to a good, and long, Carolina D. But we did ourselves no favors helping them shut us down in the first half. Turner wasn't able to exploit his height advantage over the guy guarding him, so that didn't pay off.

As I already said, I don't disagree with you that he's not a point guard. However, I think that Turner at the point with a Diebler and Buford on the floor is a better lineup than one with Hill, Buford, and Turner at his natural position. Turner may be better at the two, but I don't think Ohio State as a team is better with Hill at the point. As for his turnovers, it was obvious he was pressing against UNC. I know he can play within himself, and I am sure it will be corrected. He will be fine at the point.

Move Titus to PG....only solution in my mind

mallymal614 wrote: He is another question. If Hill becomes the starting point guard, who do you send to the bench? Diebler?

no, he is too good to send to the bench, i like the lineup just the way it is. good point.