Brooks went 11-for-25 (44%) from three over an 8-game span leading up to the Jazz series. The kid has only played in 6 playoff games and in four of those games, he played 8 minutes or less. If we're looking at small sample sizes, Brent Barry went 0-for-6 (0%) from behind the arc during a 4-game span last postseason. As far as the regular season, shooting 33% from three while playing sporadic minutes as a rookie isn't too bad. The vast majority of players improve their 3PT% as they get adjusted to the NBA 3pt line and the NBA game, in general. At the same time, I understand your concern and agree that Brooks has a lot to prove.
To me true point guard is anyone who can collect assists, and specializes in assists. At the same time, it is difficult to rack up assists if defenders do not respect your shot. Another aspect is the ability to deceive and confuse defenders as to what the pointguard is trying to execute while at the same time he makes it easy for his teammates to read what his doing on offense. All the good point guards have that ability to deceive, when defenders think he is going to shoot he dishes a pass, when the defenders think he is going to pass , he takes a shot. I think the difficulty with brooks early on is that defenders had an easy time reading or anticipating what he was trying to do, he played better when he developed this ability to "deceive and confuse" the defense by using drive and dish tactics, and mixing this up with dribble penetration, hesitation and outside shooting. Brooks should continue to develop this innate ability to deceive the defense which good point guards seem to possess. I think the best point guard with deception skills was Magic Johnson, John Stockton was very deceptive on the pick and roll, same with Paul, Nash and Deron williams.
You are overvaluing assists- particularly in our offense that will see T-Mac, Yao and Artest having the ball in their hands basically every possession. When we won the title, how many assists per game did Kenny Smith avg? Maybe 4 a game? Mike Bibby was a fairly good PG for the Kings under Adelman and he rarely averaged more than 6 assists a game.
The response was in relation to the term true point guard. If the question was whether you need a true point guard to win a championship that would be different altogether. Basically if you look at the league leaders , this is one category you can expect pointguards to dominate. You don't expect guards to dominate rebounds or blocks, they may dominate points per game but historically the true point guards dominate a game with assists. Mike Bibby played on a team with a lot of good passers so 6 assists would be a lot on a team that already had good passing big men in Chris Webber and Vlade Divac .
when you are a starting PG and can not shoot, you are a true PG. When you are labled as a true PG, it means you suck at shooting. when someone is praising your girlfriend's heart, she is ugly. Rafer is a true PG. Kidd is another true PG.
What you are saying can be summed up in one easy statement 'Brooks needs to work on his fakes.' Everything else in what I have quoted, you have pulled out from your ass. Just let the man play, okay? There are things about being a PG in a competitive league (especially the NBA) that those on the outside looking in will never understand. Theres so many things in your post that are just wrong, so I'll just ask - how can he learn to develop an ability when it is innate?
This is possibly the biggest fallacy in basketball, that you need a true PG to win.... You don't need a TRUE anything to win....just the right mix of players that maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. The Rockets 2 championship teams did not have a true PG....you don't need it if other players can contribute similar skillsets from other spots on the floor. All you need is a proper chemistry and the ability to set up teamates for easy baskets. We have excellent passers at the SG spot in Tmac and Barry, and adequate passers at the PG spot in Alston and Brooks, add in quality passing from the PF spot in Scola and Landry, a decent passing center in Yao, and decent passing at the SF spot from Artest and Battier and you have threats passing the ball all over the court...thus you don't need a true PG dominating the ball to get this team to win. The Rockets have enough.....try not to get caught up in the uneducated view that a team needs a true PG to win. DD
The term "true PG" comes from watching far too much TV analysis. Especially ESPN. Positions in general are over hyped. Forget positions, just play.
People who believe in a "true point guard" are just unintelligent basketball fans, in my opinion. Basketball is a sport with foggy boundaries between the duties of each position. Thus, no position has a "more true" style of play. While we all understand that a "true point guard" is basically implying "pass-first," we should all realize that "true point guards" are a figment of our unreasonableness.
A Point Guard should average at least 7.5 assists per game. If they are averaging less they are not good playmaking Point Guards Some teams get away with having two shooting Gurads with one playing the Point. If the team runs a lot of set plays them you need a floor general (Playmaking Point Guard). If the team plays a loosey goosey game with hardly any set plays then two Scoring Guards will fit the Bill perfectly! Coach 'A' seems to be going away from set plays so we might be ok if Rafer improves his shooting percentage
Farmar was in a similar situation last year... I think the question is not "true PG"-"not true PG". PG position involves a number of obligations since the PG player is who has the ball the most part of time. Then he can be more active or less attacking the basket or shooting, but the other things are mandatory. When you see Deron Williams in RS, you can see a lot of games in which he even shots until the 4th quarter. He is marking the systems and passing all the game, and after he can be the protagonist too. But he can defend like the best PG; he always takes the correct decision in offense; he marks the correct play; he starts the fastbreaks... He is leading his team. He has the respect of his partners and that of its rivals. You can be good scoring and creating shots actively, but this is complementary, while the other tasks are always required. Aaron Brooks can't do that consistently. Alston is closer to that.
For me a true PG is someone who understands the game, makes everyone around him better and looks to pass first. Since we are really solid on every other position we might be fine with our PG situation. The 2 things that concern me about Brooks are his defense and he turnovers. Last year he was regularly abused by the other PGs who shot just over him, or overpowered him. He doesn`t need to be great here, but he has to be respectable. TOs and bringing the offense in a difficult situation is the other thing... Brooks sometimes just uses his speed without thinking ahead and then turning the ball over. He needs to play smarter, get the ball to the right player quicker and hit his shots. But I´m fairly optimistic. Rafer can be great in this offense when he just takes his open shots. Barry looks better than I expected and can play minutes at the 1, and Brooks looks good as well.
If the underlying theme of this thread is essentially "Why don't you think Brooks is a good enough playmaking point?" I still maintain my skepticism. Brooks is good for the "instant spark" role off the bench. I wouldn't want him starting or handling the ball in the 4th quarter.
Bottom line Boston, LA, etc... have won championships without a true point guard (Rondo and Fisher). We need a guy who can bring it up, deliver the right pass into the post or on the break, wave off veterans who think they need the rock (Rafer does this well). Our greatest need will be a point guard who can shoot. 3's, midrange, and finish at the bucket. Rafer suffers at all 3. We cringe when he shoots the runner. Bottom line we need a point to get us in the offense and hit wide open shots. Aaron is a lot closer than Rafer. Rafer is who he is and will not change.
