How is it shifting the argument or attacking the opponent? The topic at hand is Brooks/Lowry. I merely stated a fact about Lars' opinion regarding Brooks. Seems on-topic to me... If I said that you held Budinger in high regard, would you consider that an attack from me?
One thing I've noticed re: Lowry vs. Brooks that I think you had backwards.. Brooks is a ball-dominant PG. I don't see the ball swung to the opposite side of the court as we do with Lowry. Brooks prefers to take his man 1on1 or use the side PnR option I'm not commenting on which is preferable or better for the team, but I remember you saying that Lowry was ball dominant.. and watching the games, I think you had it completely backwards.
^ I think the starting PG should be an off the ball player I think the bench PG should be a ball dominant player I think Brooks is better off the ball I think Lowry is better on the ball (dominant) I think perceptions of which is which lies with where the two have been playing recently.
They don't. Lowry gives up the ball to the high-post and allows the offense to run. Usually, he's setting the down screen on Martin and KM either uses the PnR or the ball is swung to the opposite side. Brooks, on the other hand, sets the down screen but is usually expecting the ball back. While watching the games, I've found myself noticing that Brooks is most likely to receive the ball back vs. Lowry in running the high post situations. This usually results in the ball not being swung to the other side and Brooks using the PnR. He's had some success doing this (9 assist game IIRC), so I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But there is a difference in how our two PGs run the offense. Brooks is much more ball-dominant and seems to obstruct the natural flow of the offense at times to use the PnR. Lowry seems more content allowing the read-and-react to run it's course. Again, I'm not commenting on which is preferable, just that I've noticed Brooks to be A LOT more ball-dominant.
Let's let Brooks start.......if he's gonna get torched by the opposing PGs I'd rather that it at least be the starting one rather than the backup one....
If AB can check the ego and wrap his head around the fact that he's the PG coming off the bench, he'll be a pretty dangerous weapon a la Jason Terry.
So you recognize that this year the two PGs have been playing in roles opposite of what you're arguing but you're continuing on the same point? In other words, you realize that Brooks has been the much more ball-dominant PG this year, yet you keep steady in your belief that Lowry is a ball-dominant PG and thus not a good fit for the starting unit?
I'm really not sure what you are saying or trying to imply.... Offensively speaking, the starters are best served with an off the ball PG. Lowry has been in this role despite not being anything more than an average off the ball player. When we played weak teams and he was shooting well, the vocal minority attributed how well the high post system was running to Lowry, when in fact he had very little to do with it, other than hitting his shots. The majority of his impact came from pushing the ball in transition when the opportunity presented itself. Despite playing off the ball this year, I know that Lowry is much more effective with the ball in his hands (see last years effeciency vs this years). Brooks however, is not very good with the ball in his hands, but he is an excellent cutter and shooter. As he recovers from injury, he is in the bench role where he spends alot of time having to setup the offense, which is not a strength of his. Perhaps T-Will playing with the bench group changes this, who knows. But for now, what or who creates offense in the second unit. Miller attempts to run the high post, but Lee is really only hitting his shots in a couple spots and Budinger hasn't been hitting anything, which severely limits what the second unit can do. Often times, when its not working, Brooks is forced into iso ball which just isnt good basketball. Lowry would be better in this role.
Then read the very next line? Just a ridiculous statement. Lowry is in the game and doesn't impede the offense like Brooks does, so that means he has very little impact? Why can't his impact be seen by others getting more opportunities in the read-and-react offense? You're trying to argue that he's not a part of the offense because he isn't controlling the ball and just taking jumpers -- it's a weak argument and the reason you have so many people arguing with you. Also, I'm confused as to why you included "when we played weak teams" -- is that your agenda shining through? Lowry was 1-2 against POR; 3-4 against MIA; 2-5 vs. MIL; 1-4 vs. CHI; 2-4 vs. LAL. Those are the best defensive teams we've played over the course of our streak and Lowry shot 9-19 from downtown against them. That means he shot 47% from downtown against the best defensive teams we've played this past month. For someone who is "not very good with the ball in his hands," Aaron Brooks has the ball in his hands the majority of the time. I won't keep arguing because we're watching two completely different things on the court. Brooks has been the ball-dominant PG of the two this year and it's really not even close. I have no idea why you once tried to argue that Brooks is better suited for the starters because he doesn't need the ball like Lowry does -- the opposite is in fact true.
Its not a ridiculous statement at all. Lowry wasnt even touching the ball and people were calling him the next Steve Nash because Martin/Scola/Battier were running three man games to perfection on weak teams who had no idea how to defend against it. He wasnt impeding it, but, as we saw last night, they were doubling down on Scola and he was hesitant to shoot which allowed the defenders to close out and prevent us from getting good looks. And its a very valid argument, whether you take credance to it or not. If you are okay with those types of performances against the Miami's, the Portlands, the LA's then more power to you. Its not going to get us very far and it suffocates the other players. You dont seem to be grasping what happens to the offense when there arent those wide open lanes from bad defensive teams. If Lowry can be relied upon to hit those shots consistantly, then you have a point, but I expect it to come back to Earth. And it still doesnt address that Brooks is flat out bad in the bench role, whereas Lowry is excellent. Let me spell this out as clearly as I can so you understand my point: Aaron Brooks has had the ball in his hand alot this year because he has played with the bench group and no one else can create looks. This leads to him being double teamed, turnovers and poor offensive execution because this is a role that is not ideal for him. He is not a PG who creates. His skill set is better served in the starting lineup where he doesnt need to have it in his hands. Kyle Lowry conversely is very good with the ball in his hands, but the starting lineup is excellent at creating for itself w/o the need of a PG to create, thus he has not had the ball in his hands that often. My suggestion is to have Brooks start and take the ball out of his hands. Have him as a spot up shooter and cutter. My suggestion is to have Lowry come off the bench where he can have the ball in his hands, because despite being decent with the starters, he is at his best with the ball in his hands. Its not about who is better, its not about who "Deserves" anything, its not about anyones contract, or anyones attitude....its about a simple allocation of resources.
lol. Both pgs have not played well for the last few games, but Brooks got embarrassed by an opposing back up pg whom I never heard before. This is Brooks contract year, so at the very least he should pretend that he is trying. I don't think the ankle is the issue anymore. It is as if Brooks' fire has been extinguished. Something is wrong with that boy.
^ larsv8 reminds me of those people who thought Yao should hang out by the 3 point line and shoot more from distance since he hit one against Golden State once his rookie year. Sound. Plan.
I really think that could happen. I've thought that was more plausible than all the Carmelo or Bosh talk from the beginning. ... At least I did before the NBA took ownership of that team. Now I have no idea how that'd work.
Why is Lowry still starting? Because our coach said so.... Coach said it best: "If your shots' not falling, do other things to help the team" Play some defense, rebound, move the ball around, and hustle!. Lowry does that and AB doesn't, simple really.
Not really, I mean now you're saying Brooks needs to play on order to use his "off the ball skills", which consist of spotting up, a la Rafer and every other PG the rockets have had. Otherwise, they don't exist, but you're making them up in order to unpaint yourself out of BBS corner. It happens Of course, when Brooks starts, a vastly superior "off the ball" player in Martin kind of has to get off the floor due to their forging of a historically sieve-like defenisve backcourt. So where does that get you? With Yao Ming on the three point line....in other words a poor use of resources.
Very concise, I get exactly what you are saying. No really, perfectly clear. Well if you bothered to actually read my points, you would know I was speaking from an offensive standpoint and that I admitted that defense is a concern. As for your Yao three point comparison, I would point out the sample of one desperation shot made versus the dozens of games that the organization decided to pair Martin with Brooks is a tad bit different. But Im sure that doesnt matter to you.
