Is there any reason why Brooks and Landry shouldn't start?

Rafer and Scola are better players.

 

Landry is too short to start. Didn't you say Chris Wilcox and Turiaf would better for the Rockets? Or how about PJ Brown?

 

I like the old starting lineup with Landry and Brooks youth and energy off the bench. In the starting lineup with Artest, TMAC and Yao, there will not be enough shots for all those guys!

 

AB had been playing nice but theres no way in hell he should start. I don't think hes ready to play 30+ mins. a night I mean if he did I thik his stats would be really bad. I think 15 to 20 mins a game for AB is good enough.

Landry. I would start him before AB, but I think he should stay coming off the bench. He can come in and give us scoring right away when we need it.

 

If Brooks continues to shoot the rock when the games count the way he is shooting it now then I am all for him starting.

Having said that it would nice to have that scoring punch coming off of the bench as well.

 

Just because Rafer, at this point, as a playmaker, is better and Scola, just fits in well with the starting lineup.

Be patient. Both Brooks and Landry are relatively young, and their time will come.

 

They are not ready yet.

 

This is the exact reason.

 

here is one crazy reason. they both killed in preseason. other teams 2nd and 3rd unit players. players that are fighting for a spot on the team. come on guy don't let the hype of the preseason get 2 u. lets stay with scola and alston and use brooks and landry 2 come off the bench. thats if brooks even plays. we have 4 days left. lol lets pray steve can contribute lol pray

 

The exciting thing about a starting lineup of...

Brooks
McGrady
Artest
Landry
Yao

...is that all 5 guys are capable of putting up 20 pts on any given night. There is offensive punch at all 5 positions.

Having said that, keeping Brooks and Landry as reserves, for now, makes more sense to me for at least a couple of reasons.

First, Alston and Scola seem more inclined to defer to other players and both are better passers than their current respective backups. Additionally, they are also both more experienced, higher IQ players that will likely make our big 3 that much more effective through better decision-making at both ends of the court.

Brooks and Landry will have more freedom to do what comes naturally to them as reserves. Plus, as much as I want Brooks to succeed and have seen his improvement, he still needs another season to prove that he has the consistency to be a starter. He also needs to show that he won't get overly abused, defensively. Brooks, Barry, Battier and Landry give us an athletic, change-of-pace second unit with a balance of defense, outside shooting and the ability to get to the rim.

In general, I just like the energy/spark that both Brooks and Landry provide off the bench as well as the experience and basketball intelligence that Alston and Scola possess to complement McGrady, Artest and Yao in the starting lineup.

 

i like them as the secret weapons of the bench

 

Maybe Landry. Brooks is much better off the bench when he can focus on attacking rather than being so deferent to McGrady. If he continues improving, I would consider having him in during crunch time for his shooting, but as far as starting, I think I would rather him give the offense a shot in the arm in the 2nd quarter.

 

QFT...

 

I can think of 22 of them...

 

Brooks would make sense in a Rajon Rondo way. That the starting lineup would be good by itself to win games but when Rondo/Brooks plays well its an indicator that they'll usually win.

If Chuck Hayes was a good fit next to Yao cuz he was an active body, Landry definitely brings that aspect. Plus Scola seems to do well when he's 1st or 2nd option scorer, something he won't be in the starting lineup.

But to answer the question if there is any reason why they shouldnt start?

-I dont know why some of us try to act like a 22 game win streak never happened, and Luther Head being crappy in the playoffs gets the most focus.
-Landry for all his good play there's still questions if his health can hold up over a full season...Scola at least seems durable.
-Scola had games were he was...blah. But then would have stretches of games where he'd play beautifully. I'm expecting his game will come back soon enough.

 

What's the rush? They're going to get alot of minutes anyways, starters or off the bench. Plus off the bench they get to exploit the weaker benches of the NBA, instead of competing against the starters of the NBA that are littered with stud PGs and PFs, especially in the West.

 

For those that say Scola is better than Landry, why?

I agree that Scola should start but not because he is the better basketball player. I just think Scola is the smarter basketball player and will better complement our big 3.

Landry is more athletic, a better shooter, a better finisher around the rim and a better defender than Scola at this point.

Scola is a smarter player with more overall experience as well as a better passer.

If I'm just comparing them as individual players, Landry is the better overall. Scola just complements our other starters better, in my opinion.

 

This is a great point. Alston and Scola's experience will help them better deal with these stud PGs and PFs while Brooks and Landry will be much more effective against 2nd-tier players.