Case for Brooks as the starter

Asking Rafer Alston to lead is like asking Splash about basketball, it will lead to utter failure.



DD

 

He's not leading the team. But he provides leadership. If Brooks is starting, he's basically just going to bring the ball up and give it to Tmac/Yao/whoever, because he's not at the point where he can call plays and direct traffic.

I've said this before, we can have a championship team with Rafer starting. Even the Celtics had starters like Kendrick Perkins that play 25 minutes a game and don't really contribute much other than playing their role well. I'd argue that Rafer plays his role just as well as Perkins does.

If Brooks starts to show leadership skills, then by all means start the guy. But I don't want him running the offense until then. His skills fit the 6th man role more than the floor general role.

 

4-1 vs 14-8.....let Brooks start until the team struggles, he has earned it, let Rafer rest.

DD

 

Two things:

1. Adelman has chosen Rafer over Brooks for a reason.
2. Alston's shooting deficiency has been well known for years, yet he still gets big roles on teams season round. Sure, on teams like the Raptors they probably don't have a good backup PG, but then again on the Raptors Rafer was in a bigger role than he was on the Rockets.

I don't know... maybe Adelman doesn't know what he's doing. He's only been doing this for 10-15 years.

 

Maybe he didn't have a choice last year, and finally does....let's see what happens.

I don't mind supporting him whatever he decides....but I hope that when Rafer struggles, he grabs some serious pine time.

DD

 

And Tmac has logged near triple double games virtually the whole time. Clearly Tmac is running the offense with Alston out.

 

Brooks is shooting better from 11 out of 14 zones.

 

Brooks has been at the level he's been at since the beggining of the season. You would think 25 games would be enough to make an accurate decision.

But your definition of struggle and my definition are probably going to be different. Although, if the Rockets struggle and Alston is in a slump, I would agree that that is a good time to bench him ala the Hayes-Scola line-up change.

I'm tired of this "well player A is a better scorer, therefore is a better player". Rafer is better in every other aspect of the game other than scoring. And we don't need more scoring in the starting line-up.

 

Its been established that Rafer is a crappier shooter. But it should also be established that Rafer is better (like I just said) in every other aspect of the game than Brooks. Defense, offensive awareness, leadership.

 

I'm further establishing it.

Brooks also has much more potential for breaking down defenses with his dribble. You know, that thing that most PGs are supposed to do.

 

NO! Your other cute little categories you got there like defense, offensive awareness, and leadership are not visible in the box score, and therefore are not applicable to the Alston/Brooks, Battier/Gay debates.

When will they learn!?

 

I think u missed the point. They made a trade for daniels to be avery's successor. They let avery go, but drafted parker with the intention of daniels starting. After the last preseason game, they traded daniels so a 19 yr old pg from france could start. Of course they backed him up with claxton and porter one yr, but pop, in the title winning mode opted for a rookie. Some call it luck or whatever, but pop knew daniels was just a backup and parker had special talents. I'm telling or have been telling people brooks has special talents. He's quick,fast, explosive and a scorer that can shoot. They can let tracy keep playing his magic johnson role, but he's a natural at it. What's unnatural is when he's dropping dimes and guys like scola and hayes are missing layups 2ft from the rim and rafer is bricking from outside and isn't good enough to convert a closer shot. Bad shooting % is usually bad shot recognition. Hopefully Adelman will put the horse out of its misery.

 

First-anyone using Brooks's size as a means to detract from his ability needs to check themselves. Size is good, but it isn't everything, and PG is the position where size matters the least. Brooks is not super small, he's no 5-8 mini-PGtype, he's at least 6 feet tall and anything he lacks in size he more than makes up for with speed and tenacity.

His size may hurt him a bit now, since he is a raw young player, but when he starts coming into his prime in the next season or two he'll be a player who know ways to keep their size from hurting them.

I am really excited about Brooks, like I know a lot of you are. I first saw the guy in the NCAA 3-point contest (which I never watch but I watched the year he played) and he was in the final two. It came down to him and another guy, but Brooks really showed off-he wore sunglasses during some important shots and it probably threw him off just enough to narrowly cost him the win. Still, I enjoyed the light hearted showmanship in front of the big group of family and friends that had come watch him-in a contest that is mostly about fun anyways.

So, I was naturally a little excited when the Rockets snagged him in the draft; while also being a little worried about the kind of player he might turn out to be. He has exceeded even my most optimistic presumptions as to what he could be as a year 2 player. He's got something special, everyone can see that, and I think if things go as they should, he'll become a Rocket's staple for years and years to come.

Just... keep him coming off the bench for at least a few more months-he needs polish. He also needs ample playing time, which I am sure he will get, and the time he does get (coming off the bench) will be incredibly valuable to this team in the long run. As an opponent, you don't want to put your second squad in there with someone who can play like Brooks does... I mean, he's liable to pull you into unexpected fast break situations, where you have to account for Brooks, Landry, and Artest all hurting you offensively.

Let's keep the foundation of that tenacious second group together, and let Skip2mylou play his defense and distribute it to our stars the way he does so well. And... thinking Starbury is better than Alston-you're nuts, man. You gotta give Skip a little love!

 

both are not good enough

 

Sometimes one guy is so good at one thing that it offsets whatever benefits another player gives. Ab is such a better shooter than Alston it isn't funny. You say that Alston provides leadership, defensive awareness and knows how to set up the offense. I say Ab0 provides the shooting that is needed to execute the offense, as well as the spacing that is necessary for our Big 3 (in this case big 2 + scolandry) to work their magic. Its no coincidence that we're playing well these past few games. A lot of it is our health coming back, but I would argue a part of it is also because we are shooting lights out, and AB is a huge part of that.

What's the point of being able to set up the offense if the defense will just collapse on Tmac and Yao and leave Alston all alone for the spot up 3? Our starting 5 is only as strong as our weakest link, and I'd rather that weak link be Brooks than Brickston.

P.S. Tmac and his triple double says he can handle the playmaking duties just fine, thank you very much

 

I have read almost every post in this thread and for the most part, I think you are all wrong. I think you are all focusing on something that has nothing to do with the Rockets playing the best ball possible.

This should not be a discussion about who starts. Who starts shouldn't matter as the game goes on. What matters is how players are used. Our team has faced injury after injury this year. That has cost us a win or two, but it has given us insight as to what player combinations can and cannot do. It's given Rick Adelman that same adverse look at his team and when Rafer comes back, he will have a battle tested backup point guard to use however he chooses. Having two weapons at the point can only help the Rockets as long as the chemistry works.

Rafer's defense is a weapon. He can D up as well as almost any point in the league. His defense may not be perfect, so in a situation where Rafer is ineffective, Brooks can be used as a different look on defense. Brook's offense is a weapon. The guy can get inside and score an easy bucket before a defense gets the chance to react. He can also hit midrange jumpers and long range jumpers at a pretty high clip. His offense isn't perfect, but Alston can always fill in and create a structured offense with a simple substitution.

My point is, both of these guys seem like they are pivotal to the Rockets success. Here's to success for both of them and here's to the coaches figuring out how to spread the minutes for success.

There is no reason for fans to write off Aaron Brooks, Rafer Alston or Steve Francis right now. Who knows what they are capable of. The important thing is making sure that they contribute effectively to the Rocket's success. Their success hinges on situations they are put in, just like the PF juggernaut (chuck scolandry) success we've witnessed.

From what I gather about all of your previous posts, the knocks on Aaron Brooks are his entry passes to Yao and his defense against stronger/bigger points. The props are his shooting, his penetration and his speed on defense.
The knocks on Rafer Alston is his shooting ablility, his shot selection and getting beat on drives to the basket. The props are on his team leadership, his passing and his clutch shooting.

How are these guys not the perfect combination? If one guy is not working out, the other might. One guard's void seems to be filled by the other's. The only players in the league that give both players trouble (in theory) are players at the top of their game. Those that are big, pass well and shoot well. If the other team's point is that good, throw Tracy, Artest or Shane on them if you have to.

Ultimately, it looks like we have two 1's worth starting. Just start one of them, use the other when things go south.

 

I just don't think it's fair for a player to lose their starting job due to an injury.
Once Rafer come back then we should see who plays better. But Brooks should get more minutes.

 

Rafer's starting job has never been in jeopardy. Maybe in the dreams of some posters here, but not in reality.

Brooks' minutes should depend on the team we're playing.