He's not much worse defensively than any of the pgs we have right now. Neither Lowry our ab are anything special in that department. I dont know why people think Lowry is the cornerstone to our defense. He's maybe average. Sure he is probably stronger than some other points, but tell me one pg that relies on a post game. Both he and ab are always going to be around average defensively.
Lowry is a great defender, but no one complains about Steve Nash on defense, so its a great trade-off. He's a veteran on this board, and those veterans will always have strong opinions. So let's respect that even though we may disagree.
I like Lowry as much as anyone else, but he is far from a great defender. He does hustle though, and it makes up for it. Watch the games. He gets beat pretty often. Shane is a great defender. Courtney lee has flashes of being a great defender. Chuck Hayes is an outstanding defender. Lowry isn't. He's better than ab, but its not night and day like everyoneseems to believe.
Kyle Lowry is a great defender in any way you look at it. when we go to the 2 PG lineup with Brooks/Lowry at the 1 and 2. Lowry always end up defending the opponent's SG. Against Boston he defended Ray Allen. Against Dallas he was defending Jason Kidd at SG while Brooks was torch- er, defending JJ Barea. Every PG gets beaten, even Rajon Rondo who is an elite defensive player. Lowry is a staunch defensive point guard who is limited by his size, but makes up for that with pure grit and determination. He displays very good lateral explosiveness, gets down in a decent stance, and uses his strength relatively well on the pick and roll. Leaping ability helps him a lot too. Makes an impact when he’s focused on pressuring the ball. Comes up with quite a few steals for a player his height. Very quick to the ball when he sees a chance to get a steal. Looking at his On/Off stats last year with the Rockets, they scored 110.2 pts per 100 possessions with him on the court vs 107.6 with him off it (+2.6) and they gave up 107.3 with him on the floor vs 110.6 with him off (-3.0). That net difference in points per 100 possessions is +5.9, which puts him well above MOST point guards in the league did for their teams last season. In fact overall, I looked up at the Cavs team(since Lowry signed his current contract with them), and last year, the only Cavaliers with a better Net difference last year were LeBron and Anderson Varejao. Varejao is an all-world defender and LeBron, well, is LeBron. In many ways, Lowry is a polar opposite to Aaron Brooks. Lowry is not a good shooter, but likes to score by getting to the hole. He has quickness and athleticism and he is a very good, if not great, defender. Lowry likes to push the ball and play up tempo, which would be a perfect fit for our new offense. In all ways, he is a great defender. Fun fact about Kyle Lowry – he finished tied for 2nd in the NBA last year in charges drawn, which is just more evidence as to how good of a defender he is. PeAcE`
Interesting about the charges, didn't know that. But you just gave Lowry a pass for the same things ab gets piled on for. Getting beat at the point. I would say their lateral quickness is about the same ( of course ab is coming off a severe ankle injury and long layoff ) ab has better jumping ability, but is obviously weaker. I'm also going to go out on a limb and say ab is quicker, and probably more athletic. Don't see much difference if thy are both getting beat at the point. Don't think either are great defensively, though likebi said, lowrys hustle makes an impact that ab probably never will have. I have seen ab guard the two at times, but it makes more sense for Lowry to, he's bigger. Don't like on/off much, even though that was interesting too. Who is on the floor with them?
Thats not the point. My point is adding another scorer to this team is not going to make us better. We have no problem scoring points. If we want to take a step forward, we must get a defensive big.
Agreed, but you must otherwise recognize that if you get Curry on this team, other players become expendable. You can, and would, take a step forward with Curry. Need vs. Opportunity Address the need, just don't turn a blind eye to the opportunity.
Disagree, after dumping multiple assets to get Curry here, you will have practically nothing left of tradable value.
Regardless, we are not one defensive center away from a championship. So would you hope to dump some assets for a young potential superstar in Curry or hope to develop thabeet/sign a t. chandler. Either way, you aren't winning a championship this season or next. Why not build for the future?
Yep. How a franchises' GM addresses this is what makes a franchise. Some GMs go for a opportunity model, like Kevin Pritchard with bringing in LaMarcus Aldridge over Zach Randolph, and others go for a need model, like Zach Randolph to Grizzlies with Chris Wallace. To extrapolate that, you could say bringing LeBron James to pair up with Dwyane Wade was certainly not a need. They for instance, could have gone for Tyson Chandler. It either make or break which direction you take with these things.
I'd imagine that the only player that would get Golden State to budge on Curry would be Kevin Martin. They might like the idea of keeping Monta at PG and getting a bigger, scoring SG in Martin. If we gave up Martin, I doubt we'd give up anything else too significant (Patterson) -- and I think we're all okay with including Jordan Hill in any deal. What the Rockets would lose in efficiency they would make up with for someone who is able to create for others and get off his own shot. It remains to be seen how clutch Curry is in big time situations.. but he's a hell of a scorer.
What about Ellis for Martin straight up..... whith T will running the show ... Ellis can guard any pg and t will any sg ... something like magic and B scott .. idk, RA have to be out if this happen or maybe we can give them budinger and hill for Biedrens 2
I just dont see the point in moving Martin for Curry. I would absolutely do it if all it cost was bad contracts, ie Jeffries/Ish for Biedrins and TPEs for Bell/Curry, but outside that I dont view Curry as a potential superstar. If we are going to sidegrade, Id prefer trying to move Scola for a sidegrade or a slight downgrade that is younger.
i bet the grizzlies felt dumb that they aint deal for ellis last year. monta ellis was a player that the grizzlies soley needed. now oj mayo is the bum ball player of the century. i would rather have ellis on the rockets than martin. martin is a great scorer but his defense is turdible.
This thread has gotten way out of whack with reality. People actually arguing why we need a defensive C instead of Curry? No, our biggest need is not a shot blocker, as much as that might seem to be the obvious answer. Our biggest need is a franchise player. You can go find your shot blockers to fill around him afterwards. While Curry may not be a "superstar" in the class of Lebron, Wade, Kobe etc, he is certainly a "franchise player" who is developing into the same tier as Deron William, Steve Nash, Derrick Rose, Brandon Roy etc. Since there is no way we can get our hands on any of those in tier 1, if you can get one from the step below, you go all in for them. I'd give AB, Lowry, Martin, Hill, picks and probably whatever else they wanted for him. This is all a waste of breath anyways, since there is really zero chance we can get him anyways. Still, don't let some of your AB colored glasses fog up your perception on reality. The little midget isn't in the same stratosphere as Spicy Curry.
Curry by himself is a much attractive commodity in getting that center than the assets are separately. You can probably trade Curry straight up for De Andre Jordan and maybe something else if you really wanted to. If he's available we should get him simple as that. Worse case scenario we don't get anyone and else and rebuild with PP, Curry and the lottery pick.
Only if you pull a gun on Warriors GM. Trading two all-star potentials for Martin and Brooks would be considered ehm....crazy. The guy would lose his job.
