I think it's highly likely Brooks is traded within the next couple seasons for the same reason I thought Landry would get traded. His trade value is higher than his value to our team. He is a scorer but not much of a playmaker and is a very poor defender. He's one of the guys that gets all the credit for a win because he'll often show up as the high scorer. Players like Lowry, Hayes, and Battier don't have that high trade value because they aren't primarily scorers. I think Morey would naturally prefer to retain these players if he can't get equal value (which is unlikely because most teams don't understand their value). L...O...L...
Agreed. Brooks is the better player. But being the better player doesn't mean that he's the more ideal player.
We all love that Brooks/Lowry combo that we tend to see for decent stretches of games. But guess who isn't playing the 2 guard for Brooks to start the first and third quarters, and to finish games alot. Aaron Brooks. I am really interested to see how Aaron does as the starting point with Martin in there who can knock down shots at the 2. I also find it ironic that in the last game the team played the starting 2 and 3 spots had terrific games, and as a result, Brooks had 12 assists. Its all moot anyhow, as when Yao comes back next year Adelman will do what's best for the team, and start players accordingly. So I am not worried either way. I dont have anything vested in any one Rockets player. I care about what's best for the team, and fortunately for me, Adelman does too.
I can agree to that. But remember the first Jazz series Yao played in, we had no difficulties getting him the ball because they played traditional post defense behind him. However, Rafer couldn't hit the broad side of a barn in most games and it cost us.
Absolutely wrong. When a great player's window is closing, you surround him with the best supporting cast possible to maximize the overall chance of winning. Cassell and Horry were good role players who were developing into better players, but Barkley was clearly the superior player at the time, and it wasn't close. Actually, agreeing to disagree is one of the stupidest concepts I've ever heard. If you're truly believe in your position, you should be able to logically explain why your position is superior to opposing views.
True, Rafer was garbage, but he was still 3-4 inches taller than Brooks, and that makes a big difference. Especially when you consider that Rafer was a better passer and ball handler than Brooks.
Couldn't agree more on this. I would make that trade again and again and again. The league obviously was going to let the Sonics play illegal D all game with a token call in the first and third quarter. You had to do something to be able to beat them.
Lowry is the better point guard. Plain and simple. He's inconsistent with his shooting, but thats fine. His toughness, energy, and demeanor he infects the rest of the rockets with often pull us out of scoring droughts we encounter when BROOKS is the starter(to be fair, the battriza combo kind of skews that). From watching all the games, one thing sticks out to me about Lowry. He changes the tide of the game. He turns one stolen pass or offensive rebound into a scoring hurricane that puts us back on top of the game. In late game situations, instead of dribbling it around like Brooks and losing it due to stupidity, he makes good decisions and is clutch. No need to trade Brooks. Just put him as Martin's back-up, and the rockets will be fine. If we do trade Brooks, we trade him for a great PF and attempt to get Rubio somehow to partner with Llull to be our back-up guards in a couple of years.
But Lowry isn't as tall as Alston. And my point is that no matter how easy or hard it is to get Yao the ball, if you have a weak link out there in regards to shooting, it's going to cost ya. Having a weak shooter out there is a bit tougher to hide than a weak entry passer. Besides in the Yao post offense you create a triangle with Yao, a corner shooter(Battier) and a wing option(Brooks/Martin). The other two are on the other side of the floor. Brooks could easily be off the ball with Martin/Battier/Yao forming the triangle. You then greatly reduce Brooks' alleged weakness as an entry passer but keep a lethal shooting option on the floor.
That is because he comes off the bench for limited minutes. If you think he can do that for an entire game, especially in the fourth quarter after being asked to run the floor for 30 minutes the rest of the game, you're nuts. Also, defenses would adjust much better to his full court style of play if he were the starter.
Since we haven't seen him start yet, we should give him the benefit of the doubt(when he returns from injury) to see how he does. If he plays poorly, we bench him again. Easy.
Lowry is shorter than Alston, but he does have a few inches on Brooks. And you're right about Lowry being an incapable shooter. Any idea how Martin's passing game is? If he can get the ball to Yao, I'd rather have Brooks coming off the bench in a Jason Terry type role. I think that Lowry style of pushing the ball would save Yao some wear and tear on his feet (assuming he doesn't try to get involved in the play).
It's stupid if someone think we can sign Lowry at $2 million.. And as for Brooks, I think he is a very good scorer, but my biggest knock on him is his decision making and play making being below average. This fact hasn't change much since his UO days and I have watched many of his games while I was attending U of O. There is a reason why Adelman pair Brooks and Lowry in many of the 4th quarters, because Lowry is flat out a better decision maker than Brooks and Brooks is much more effective if you just let him be a pure SG...
If it's something I am clearly passionate about, I agree. But deciding if a trade that happened over a decade ago was good or not...to me, it just isn't worth getting all worked up over a message board about. You feel one way, I feel another. We both think we're right. The end. Let's move on and quit derailing this thread.
I don't know what Lowry's actual height is but he's listed at 6'1" and Brooks is listed at 6' even (he's 5'11.75" with shoes) and they look about the same height to me.
I don't know why, but I expected better than this from a senior member of this message board. I go by the evidence. I do not have an agenda. When this topic of Brooks or Lowry came up in early November: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=177007 My response: And if you are referring to this more recent thread: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=181726&page=2&pp=20 Here was your first response: Here are all my "manipulative" posts: And you reply to that: I spent time supporting the points you were making, and you charge me with being manipulative and having an agenda. There isn't a single post of mine that exists on this whole damn forum in which I ever said that Lowry should start over Brooks. And you dare to call me a zealot? Are you kidding me?
