cough...cough....mutter (3rd string pg on most teams) I think he plays too short for sg and does not have true pg skills and I,d hate for our stars to score 30 pts a night or in the playoffs to have him give up 31.
Calvin Murphy, Allen Iverson, Chris Paul....if a guy can play, he can play..... Aaron Brooks can play. DD
DD- You know killer and splash probably haven't played ball past jr high. I don't know why we keep debating guys like that.
Still play with my 60 year old father who coached years in the BCI leagues and played until I realized i would probably run in to the same problems I expect AB to. As for debating and if I am not mistaken DaDAkota stance on VSpan and more make him more than a legimate partner for a debate as well as my stance on certain positions make me a great debate as well as your thoughts as well as Splash's thoughts. Lesbogiz (Unpronouncable names SHOULD BE BANNED! right DaDakota?), if you are so knowledgeable then why aren't you in the NBA? Is it because you are physically limited, like me and AB and probably a lot of other people here. I DON'T DO FRATERNITIES AND I DON'T DO CLASS REUNIONS. I don't like the smell of elitism and i was born an iconoclastic with great senses, so don't take it personal that we disagree anymore than you would if we did agree, and i won't tell you that you stink and you don't have to tell me I'm lower on the imaginary pyramid than you are. I think you are all good guys, disagree or not, and I am on your side but when it comes down to it really the only side I'm on is on the rockets winning side. I don't think AB is that winning PG we need. No reason to insult me just an opinion. Not disagreeing to just argue. not arguing just debating. if you or I could guard him when his jets are shut off, that should be a good give away of his liabilities.
I don't think Brooks supporters are necessarily making that argument. Rather, they are saying that Alston is so bad that Brooks is currently our best option. I've supported Brooks as long as anybody around here and I'm not convinced that he is the long-term solution. I just think that Alston's weaknesses are so weak that he holds this team back. I'm not sure that Brooks would do better than Alston as a starter but I've seen enough of both of them to give it a shot for at least several weeks.
Come on man. The kid can't learn unless he gets significant playing time. Rafer is topped out. He is what he is. Brooks has the potential to take us to the next level. Rafer had plenty of chances. He didn't get it done, period. No one is saying Rafer stinks and should be traded away. He's a decent PG. But this is the NBA. You have to be more than decent to win big.
The real question with Brooks isn't whether he's good or not, it's whether he's better than the alternative. Alston is subpar, hands down. Nobody who averages less than .400 should be a starter.
That's cool. I don't pretend that I was pro material, just D-1 and pro am a few yrs ago. As long as we can't have healthy conversation, that's always good. I just don't agree with the logic of why he shouldn't start. Adelman hand picked the guy because he has watched the kid through college. I would be the 1st to tell you I wasn't thrilled with the pick until I had the chance to watch about 10-15 games on video. When rafer went out last yr, instead of turning to jackson, I thought they shouldve gave the keys to brooks. In the offseason I thought they shouldve gave the keys to brooks.Tracy is and always be the pg on this team. That's his best attribute and one that he confortable in. That being said, they need shooters,finisher, and scorers around he and yao. They need a guy that can be paxson/bj armstrong/steve kerr like. What brooks has is he can really shoot, and unlike those guys, he's lightning and can finish. There are plenty of easy attack creases when yao and tracy are on the court. The problems that the rox had or have in the playoffs is no one can get to those crease. I thought the almight battier would do it, but he's scared. Luther isn't capable. The thing about it now is Brooks, Wafer, and Artest can. Rafer is suited with the 2nd unit and playing with guys that will get up and down the court. Rafer as a spot up, half court pg without the ball plays to all his weaknesses. If he's out there with Wafer,landry, and artest, he doesn't have to yield the ball to 2 players like yao and tracy. Brooks on the other hand doesn't mind, but brooks off a miss pushes the ball and forces a mini fastbreak. In the half court, opponents honor him more and are quicker to leave yao and slower to close with brooks. He puts so much pressure on the defense like tony parker, devin harris types that it opens optons up for yao. The big guy has to come over and help, leaving yao for offensive rebs. If the big don't help, he's going to score, finish, and draw a foul. What's not to like about that. I don't want to trade rafer, but if I could get a vet backup and a big, I would do it. Rafer for Dooling and Boone or some combo like that would give the rox a backup big and backup pg. That would help them more than people expect.
I see what you mean about Brooks being more capable of taking advantage of the creases. But I don't see how Rafer fits in better with the 2nd lineup. Yeah, Rafer isn't a good shooter. But he's a better shooter than he's a creator with the ball. I'd rather see him shooting a wide open three than have him trying to create a shot going to the basket. You think Rafer would be better in an up and down transition game? I don't. I'd rather give the ball to Brooks on a fast break than Rafer, because he can finish. You say that Rafer in the starting lineup exposes his weaknesses. I think the opposite -- putting him on the court with a number of players you can't run the offense through will expose his weaknesses. It will force him to try to take more control over the offense. That's not what any of us want. The current philosophy is sound. Start the veterans, guys who know how to play sound defense as a team and have a comfort level playing with each other. Guys who knows their roles. Guys who've proven they can play at a high level as a unit. Then bring energy guys or change of speed guys off the bench with Brooks and Landry. If they prove to be more effective in a particular game, give them more minutes and maybe let them finish the 4th quarter. As for starting Battier ahead of Artest, I see the logic in it but I'm not really sold on it yet. If we need more offensive punch in the starting group, that's where I'd add it.
You can run an offense through Ron artest. Also take it in to conscideration that Brooks is a young dude. He can play 37-40 mins a night if needed. Say we bring Alston off the bench to run the show and leave aaron as the two for a couple of minutes. Rafe and Brooks can be on the floor at the same time. I just feel like Brooks should be the guy to start and finish games. He's just a better overall player who is going to get better with more minutes.
Durvasa- I think if rafer had a bunch of atheletic guys who could run and finish, I think he's ok. Forcing him into a spot up role for a guy who could never shoot is not good. If he had good shot recogniton like avery johnson, it wouldn't be so bad, but he has no mid range, streaky from 3, and can't finish. That's sounds like a kevin ollie type to me. A lot of cants on a team trying to win a title.
You're forgetting Artest. Like Tmac, he's someone who needs to dominate the ball to be effective. With Yao Ming on the bench, we can use Artest like how Adelman did in Sac-as a post up guy. He'll just post his man and score inside. In terms of stand-still 3 pt shooting Rafer and Ab0's fgs isn't that far apart. Rafer can (along with Battier) provide spacing and give both Landry and Artest the space they need to work. Look at your bolded part. You say that placing Rafer with the 2nd unit means that Rafer will be exposed because he's playing with players you can't run an offense through. Well our Pgs can only do two things on offense: Running the offense and scoring. We all know Rafer sucks at scoring. Now you don't want him to create plays as well. Why the heck do we have him on our roster then? If he can't run the offense and he certainly can't score, then he's freakin useless! A lot of his supporters are saying he runs the offense more smoothly than Ab0 does. Well why don't we put him with the 2nd unit then, who don't have the luxury of having Tmac create for them? I said it once and I'll say it again: having AB0 on the bench is a waste, because you'd have 3 capable scorers (AB, Landry, Artest) on the floor at the same time. Sure the bench would be awesome, but why do that when your starting lineup only has two capable scorers (Tmac and Yao), which forces Rafer to take more shots than is healthy for the team? A team's starting lineup is always better than its second unit; Artest and Landry are more than enough offense against the other team's scrub players. It's not like their playing 2 on 5 either; you'd still have Battier and Rafer to take those extra shots.
Just a heads up worell was saying during the game that when rafer comes back that he would be running alongside artest coming off the bench. How credible is this?
