Everything you said was pretty solid. This I take exception with due to Brooks developing in a more traditional high-school/college atmosphere vs Parker who was playing overseas and came to the NBA as a teenager. Heck, had Parker just sat on the bench his first two years he would have learned a heck of a lot watching the NBA game first hand. Him actually playing in them only served to increase his growth that much. Aaron wasnt exposed to that kind of thing until he was 22-23. You learn a lot by watching and understanding things. Brooks most likely won't challenge a Paul/Williams/Nash career but to say a tier down with less than 100 starts and a slightly older than average start to his NBA career is not happening is certainly too early to call. But alas, if I had a nickel everytime I saw someone type that they KNEW something was not going to happen and it did I'd be a rich man.
I don't know what lies for Brooks. Maybe a contract deal similar to Jameer Nelson or Kirk Hinrich. I know he won't get a Rondo deal. With that said, he needs to stop with those damn bonce passes. An overhead pass isn't that hard to do. And with Yao coming back(if he doesn't opt out) he can't handle those passes.
Brooks may end up being special, but it won't be because he out performed Nash's 3rd season when Nash was being booed in Dallas. Almost every PG you look up who was a starter in their 3rd season was equaling or out performing Nash's season 3 output. Nash's exceptional developement from that point is the exception rather than something to look at as a measuring stick of things to come. It has been a good year for Brooks so far, but he is still quite a ways from being an all star, much less a super star level player. Which isn't necessarily a knock on him, Deron Williams has never been an all star either.
Thanks. :grin: First off, thanks. But my point is that the argument could be made that the reason Aaron wasn't exposed to that kind of thing until much later is because he didn't have that kind of talent when he was that age. We aren't seeing a whole lot of four year college players come in and slowly develop into superstar status these days. I'm not sure we ever saw much of that. If you look at most of the great ones who went to school all four years, they were all stars from year one. Nash might be literally the only exception to that. Yes, all of the great ones continued to progress and further improve their games throughout their career - and the truly great ones even learned how to evolve their games to continue to dominate after their speed and athleticism diminished - but most every true superstar who played more than a couple years of college has been a star within their first year or two in the league. Superstars who come to mind that didn't establish themselves as stars right out of the gate: Kevin Garnett Kobe Bryant Steve Nash We could possibly include Chauncey Billups, Tony Parker and Jermaine O'neal. Though, personally, I wouldn't say any of them have had superstar careers (but have all had very, very solid all-star careers). Of those, Bryant and Garnett came straight out of high school. Parker came over from France as a 19 year old. Billups came out after his sophomore year. And only Nash played all four years of college ball. Nash and Duncan may literally be the only two superstars left in the NBA who played a full four years of college basketball. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many who even stuck around for their sophomore year. And that's because, more often than not, if you have the talent to become a superstar in the NBA, it is evident very early on. And again, I'm not going to say Brooks can't follow the road Nash did to super stardom. It's possible. I just don't think it's very likely.
The stats are well and good. But these numbers look very different when they are put into context. Parker has been a key PG contributor to the Spurs' championships and he is one of the major reasons why they are still an elite team after so many years. His impact on that elite team is qualitatively different than Brooks with the Rockets regardless of the actual numbers. Brooks on the other hand plays for a "middle class" team as Battier put it, so the impact of his stats are different. That is just one example of the myriad reasons why those numbers, while they look comparable, become different when contextualized.
Brooks will never be an impact player until he learns to better control his speed and change his "head-down" mentality.
brooks is already an impact player. but he has definite holes in his game. the development and ceiling of a player is a definite crap shoot, however he has alot of things working in his favor... strong franchise HOF coach good mix of veteran leadership players don't just suddenly become special, it takes drive and lots of grooming.
we need to scale this on the right NBA outlook. Brooks is more of a SG than a PG, like Allen Iverson. Yes, Brooks makes plays, and the staff likes what he runs, that's why he's a starting PG. However, with his high PPG, lack of assists, etc., it's obvious that he's not the finder/feeder that the BEST PGs are, which are Steve Nash, Chris Paul, Deron Williams, etc. i think the correct comparison would be against Rip Hamilton or Chauncey Billups. in numbers (present and future), size, likeliness, and type. i'd really want to compare him to Allen Iverson, but.. you just can't AB has a long road of criticisms to answer before he can be truly called a superstar.
Brooks style is nothing like Parker or Nash. I think Brooks will be a nice solid player, but I don't see him going to "elite" status. I think PG's must be excellent passers to be considered elite, unless they can score like AI did. Brooks will continue to improve and I wouldn't be happy to let him go, but I think some people are getting a little carried away early.
I just posted those numbers because Brooks is a shoot first PG and Tony Parker is the measuring stick in that category. Why is the impact of his stats different for what Parker does for his team? Stats are stats those are quantitative values and therefore is a factual measurement of how effective he is when he plays. And in those stats they look almost even. Yes he will never be a pass first PG so no comparison to Nash, D-Will etc, it is not justified.
Not only this, but Rafer Alston's best assisting year was a hair over 6 per game. And Rafer was lauded as a pass first traditional PG who unfortunately couldn't shoot or score at the rim. Parker has never been a huge assist guy. He has certainly been solid, and is quite a better scorer underneath the basket than Brooks is.
If you put a better team around Brooks, he would make it rain 3's all day. IMO he is a hell of a scorer, just not the guy you would want to build around. Elite players are those who you build a team around.
I like the title of this thread because it makes me think Brooks has been a liar while he has been in Houston and the OP wants to know what he will lie about next.
