Morey the contrarian in the draft

John Lucas was a pure PG, and drafted number 1 by the Rockets.....

DD

 

You mean the guy who played 2 years here, before we gave up on him for a broken-down Barry and had his career destroyed by drugs? The guy had two good seasons for the Rockets. And if that's the best example of a passing PG you can come up with, then I rest my case.

 

We did not give up on him, as a consequence of signing Barry the rules forced us to give him up as compensation.

Some things that google just doesn't say, huh?

Do you remember him? Do you recall him getting called for a charge in the Eastern conference playoffs?

Because I sure do.....

DD

 

You must not have been on this board during the Brooks, Landry draft. It was very shocking that Morey's first two draft picks were an Undersized PF that came off of ACL surgery and a Tiny Scoring PG.

last years draft were though we would get any picks so we were just happy to get Bud and Taylor (Llull too).

Morey is all about value vs. need. If The Value helps us in trade talks and on the court it's a bonus.

 

And most people liked Donte Greene as a pick too.....

This year, it will be interesting...if the Rockets keep the pick, they need to go for Best player available.

If they believe Yao is healthy they have a fairly complete team, and anyone they pick would not be counted on to play for a year or two at least.

DD

 

Same difference. If you sign a player knowing the other team can take a player from you, how is that not a trade?

Not sure what you mean with the whole google thing. I simply remembered that transaction from reading that book on Washington punching Rudy T(forgot the book name).

 

Some things you can't learn from a book, or the internet, you just needed to be there.

DD

 

WTF!? How can you not learn about how NBA Free Agency work by reading? Do they not have a writing system 30 years ago that prevent such tales to be passed down in a way besides oral storytelling? Do such incredible tales such as the Rockets signing Rick Barry and desperately hoping the GSW won't pick Lucas as compensation get lost through generations, errr... 1 generation?

 

I'm all for adding one of those guys. By the way - you mention that Brooks "comes up short defensively". Can you expound on how Rubio is better defensively than Brooks?

 

Elite passing ability is not something I necessarily covet. Nash, Kidd, Stockton - zero rings. I have no interest in investing huge cap dollars into someone who isn't an elite scorer or defender.

I think you overestimate the impact of coaching in the NBA. I have doubts that anyone can "learn to score better through coaching".

I want my point guard to be able to hit open shots above all. I base that on the history of the NBA of the last 30 or so years and what wins championships.

 

Do we need a playmaker like Rubio? I would think no.

1) Adelman's system doesn't require it, the offense doesn't flow through the PG like it does for teams like New Orleans, Pheonix or Utah. Adelman teams actually tend to have shooting PGs (Porter, Bibby, and now Brooks).

2) Playmakers are overrated IMO. They aren't necessary to win a title. In fact, plenty of scoring PGs have won titles and been successful in the playoffs. The major playmakers like Chris Paul, Nash, Stockton, Kidd, Williams... all lacking titles. Meanwhile, you have guys like Parker that have several. Obviously... he had help with Duncan, but that kind of goes to my point... you don't NEED a playmaker at PG.

 

Rubio is severely overrated. We woiuld have to give up too much to get a kid who wasnt ready to perform the first time he was drafted. Brooks is very serviceable with the right star around him.

 

I'm sorry but I disagree with everyone giving up on Ariza who is an excellent defender with his length and height. If anyone goes, it's Shane. He has the intelligence and not the athleticism to stay relevant.

BOTTOM LINE YOU MUST TRADE FOR VETERANS IN ORDER TO WIN RIGHT NOW. (SEE BOSTON).

 

Actually, your argument is that point guards in general are useless, not passers. Because most of the recent championship teams have pretty mediocre PGs. In which case Brooks is useless because he's a point guard. So you're pretty much negating your own point by using championships as a benchmark.

Really? You've never seen any player improve their shooting over the course of an NBA career? I find that hard to believe, because shooting ability is one of the few traits that all successful players develop over time.

I'll just go back 20 years because I wasn't a basketball fan in the 80s.

Parker, Rondo, Harper, Thomas aren't great shooters.
Williams(at least in Miami's championship year), Fisher, Armstrong, Smith, Billups are great shooters.

Not sure how history supports your argument.