This is true. The lowry people are seeing now is different from the lowry people were saying before shouldn't start. Let's not pretend Lowry has been this good in prior years, its pretty well documented he had a horrible shot before this season started. So honestly DD you shouldn't apologize if you thought Lowry shouldn't start over brooks. Before this season started that was true; statistics have showed that Lowry played like crap when he played with Yao, simply because he couldn't drive into the lane with the guy in the way, and he couldn't hit open 3 pt shots and capitalize on Yao's double teams like Brooks can. Everything's changed; Lowry leveled up as a player, and we no longer have Yao.
It is amazing how many people continue to completely miss the point that was made by the folks that have wanted to start Lowry. It is also amazing how rude and definitive such statements were about Lowry's abilities and potential as a starting PG. Near all Lowry supporters were of the mind that an extremely young player could improve his shooting ability, ala Jason Kidd. All Lowry supporters were of the mind that the odds of a 160lb PG learning to defend, distribute, execute and control tempo were significantly less than the odds of Kyle Lowry developing a reliable jumpshot with the confidence that comes with starters minutes. Crow, eat it...
I believe that there was some posters even 2 years back saying how Lowry was a better shooter than his percentages show because he always took long 3 point shots at the end of quarters/halves, and he had a significant number of bail out shots(i.e. shots with shot clock running down). Taking these shots out of the equation combined with the fact that as a vet he gets more respect from refs(i.e. more fouls called for him), he was always a decent shooter when shooting in rhythm, no way as bad as most people think he is just by looking at his percentages.
Are you kidding? Did you see how arrogant, smug, and certain the responses were? Totally deserves to be called out after being such an ******* about it to others.
That's like making a bad draft pick - say, Thabeet over Evans or Curry - and saying, "well, everything's changed...it turns out Thabeet didn't develop very well, and Curry and Evans are actually really good." Doesn't change the fact that you screwed up the pick in the first place. The positive thing for me is, Kyle worked his butt off after signing a contract extension. Hopefully, he carries that into the offseason and adds another piece to his game.
I'm not talking about those who posted how Klow will be a career backup forever etc., just those who said Brooks should still be the starter last season. Like I said last season Klow had a broken jumpshot, so Brooks should have and was the starter.
I don't get your analogy. Last year Brooks was the better fit with Yao Ming because Lowry didn't have a 3 pt shot. What's the "screwing up" that happened? Are you saying we should have started Lowry last season because he will find his 3 pt shot THIS season? Also Lowry worked on his game prior to getting his extension. Once he got his money he pigged out and got all chunky and started having back spasms, part of the reason why we went 0-5 and people were all down on him calling him overpaid when the season started.
The problem here is I see the OP taking posts that said Brooks should still be the starter last season and then making fun of it NOW, when Lowry has clearly taken his game to another level. I don't see how those posts were wrong last season, when it was only this season that Lowry became better. Fact 1: Last season Brooks was the better shooter and fit with Yao Ming, Fact 2: This season Lowry has become the better player. Assumption: Therefore, the posts last year saying Brooks should start were wrong. See the flaw in the logic there? That's like saying Kobe is better than Jordan because if they fought 1-on-1 now Kobe would win, or that the Battier trade was a fail because Gay has become better than Battier after 5 years.
You're missing the point entirely. Several people saw a higher ceiling and more long term viability with Kyle than with Aaron. We saw Aaron lighting it up, and we weren't fooled or deterred, we wanted Kyle because he was a true point guard (something Aaron will never be) and we knew this is what he would become, and he did, so help yerself to summa that there crow, feller.
It's not that hard to get. Development happens. Projectability is part of the game, and Yao wasn't playing last year, either. And if you weren't factoring in the possibility that Yao, who was missing an entire season after missing significant time in 3 of the previous 4 seasons, wasn't going to be a dominant force again, I don't know what to tell you. Not according to this http://twitter.com/DraftExpress/status/22542426872, which was then retweeted by Morey. And what's new about people freaking out and overreacting over a 5 game stretch?
I'll bite. Okay I don't think the OP is directing this thread towards the Brooks VS Lowry argument as much as he's calling out people who shutdown Lowry as any kind of threat to start. Now I'll take it a step further, people's reasoning for thinking Lowry would be a better starter was much more fathomable than those that thought Brooks would, logically speaking. However(apparently) there were a lot of snide comments made towards a player as if they knew how he would develop and assumed the worst, relatively speaking, and did not give adequate reasoning behind their stance. "Brooks is the way of the future for the Rockets because he's fast and can shoot!", statements like that do not justify anything. Now like the OP said, it was much more likely for Lowry to become the starter based on his skill set. He could always run the offense, pass, play defense, rebound, drive and initiate the offense, draw fouls. All of those skills are far more important than what Brooks had in his prime, which were: Great first step, really good shooter, good iso player. The rest of his game was average at best. At best. Now look at that, how did people so easily write off player A to player B? It's not a landslide by any means but it was treated as such and the OP feels those people should own it. Does the fact that Yao played with Brooks change things? Yes, but that would be a different argument. What we're discussing is the fact that the idea of Lowry as a starter NEVER should have been scoffed at because the difference in ability between the two players was never great enough to justify doing so. Get it? Please don't retort with statements comparing the two players or their situations because it is near irrelevant in this topic.
i gotta admit, i was one of the believers that lowry couldnt be better then AB...but now i realize how wrong i am. The guy is better than AB buy a mile, his work ethic is amazing and he gives it his all. I am more than happy to admit that.
HAI GAIS I bought some houses in 2007 and they are all foreclosed now. I currently live in a cardboard box and communicate with you via library. BUT THATS OK. You see, when I bought those houses it was BEFORE I found out the market was in a historic bubble and BEFORE I found out the ARM% I got was from a loanshark not a bank, and they they literally need my arm now. So it gives me great relief that I was never wrong. NO CROW FOR ME. Unfortunate since my current diet comprised of pigeons isn't much better. Sincerely Stubby McNebberwong
No, the op lined this thread up as eat crow type of thing and its not really about that. The arguments from people who wanted brooks to start vs lowry the starter had their reasons. I merely pointed out that some of what people thought should be factors why didnt pan out. Brooks has been terrible this year and lowry has been great,but in the end the team is where they were last year. The offense is better and the defense still suck. The defense was better last year with battier and ariza, the offense is better with martin and chase.
What an awesome freaking post. That is exactly what this thread is going for, but you put it much better than I did.
Since you insist on repeating this broken argument, I have to reiterate my response as well to stop the spread of misinformation. Because it is true that if you repeat it enough, some idiots will take it as fact, as I've already seen. Yes, the team is "where they were last year", and will probably end up only slightly better. But to take that and imply Lowry is somehow only = to Brooks last year is twisted logic at its best. Last year Brooks playing at his best had the absolute best backup PG in the league. One who many of us argued was better than the starter. One who brought us back from many deficits, extended many leads, and in the end won many games for us. This year with Lowry, for half the season he had an undrafted rookie for a backup, sprinkled in with some games with no backup. And for the other half he had one of the absolute worst backup PGs in the league. Whether that was due to an injured ankle, or a bruised ego, his production was an anchor that held the team back any time he step foot on the court. He cost us many leads, ran up many deficits, and in the end lost many games for us. Despite that, to have as good or better a record than last year is a testament to Lowry's hugely positive impact on the team. You see why I follow you around now? There are so many holes in your leaky logic that I take it as a civil service to plug them before they contaminate the populous.
If we discard all the minutes that Lowry was not on the floor, our record this year is 41-21-3. Meaning, 41 games we outscored opponent with Lowry, only 21 games we were outscored with Lowry, 3 games it was tied. What is our record looking at minutes when Lowry is off the floor? It is 21-45-4. That disparity is almost unbelievable. Given that, saying "with Lowry we're a .500 team, just like last year" to me doesn't quite capture it accurately. Lowry was a huge difference maker last year as a bench player, and he's been an even more incredible difference maker this year as a starter.
