that's like saying we need better defenders or we need better rebounders or we need better ball-handlers. obvious you want all of those things. what trade-off are you going to make to get them? if you aren't going to have a trade-off, then you're talking about stars/superstars who you have to pay a ton of money. the rockets trade-off for non-pure shooters was defense as last year we were 8th in defense and still 7th in offense. not elite at either but good at both. the problem isn't that we can't shoot. it's that we our trade-off for non-pure shooting, defense, fell apart this season, even though we seemingly kept a bunch of good defenders. someone mentioned parsons. he seems exactly like the other guys. a guy who can hit 3's but isn't a pure shooter. he hit 37% his last year in houston. he's hit 40% since going to dallas but i don't think anyone would classify him as a pure shooter (unless you're calling beverley a pure shooter). and he's also not a great defender. and he also costs twice as much as ariza. and he also hasn't played in the playoffs. pure shooters who play defense aren't available in abundance or for cheap. saying we should get better shooters so we can shoot a lot of 3's (when that isn't even the point of shooting 3's instead of long 2's) in a vacuum that ignores all other skills doesn't mean anything.
daryl moron and his computers think they can just sign people who can shoot without realizing that you should only sign people who you have seen the future on and know will shoot exactly at their average at all times. gmfail.
