Why not??? It's the team first! If Lowry keeps on playing well, I don't see why should we use a undersized shooting guard as our starting point guard.
I don't know but AB's injury is a good break for Lowry to show the NBA that he could be a starter. Hopefully AB's comeback will begin with him coming off the bench. We will be able to see if AB will be effective coming off the bench. It's not so much who the starters are as who will play in the 4th quarter that's important. Hopefully no one on this team is a diva.
Either way one of them are going to be mad. I'd move one of them. Probably brooks as he will return more.
Billups wasn't a very good shooter in the early part of his career but really improved in Minnesota and of course Detroit. He still isn't a great precentage shooter overall but his 3 point shot really improved and his assist numbers went up too. Hopefully, we are seeing the same thing with Kyle as his progresses. Oh and by the way after last night... 42% shooting overall, 33% three pointers, 4 rpg, 7 apg, 1.6 spg and 9.5 ppg.
I've never been a 'Lowry should start' guy but thinking about Brooks playing off the ball in Brad Miller's offensive might be :grin:
I was puzzled by people who think Lowry becoming a good 3pt shooter is a bad thing. It's only bad if he turns into Antoine Walker chucking up shots. But if he can utilize his shot, then it will make him all the more deadly. Think about this, Lowry is good to great in almost every facet of the game, except two: height and shooting. If he could shoot, he would be an all star pg. Team wouldn't be able to sag off of him, which would give him a lot more lanes to penetrate. I brought up Nash because Nash is a triple threat. Defenders can't leave him. But if they come up too close, he can blow by him and can either get to the basket if no one closes out, or dish to an open teammate when the defense collapse on him.
Lowry has until Dec 10. Starters shouldn't lose their position because of injuries. If they did, no wonder no superstar wants to sign with us.....
The only Rocket that took lots of contested 3s was Martin, and it's because he's the only one who can make them. When they play off Lowry, he should take the 3 if he's confident, which he was.
Let brooks start still but do what adelman is doing and continue to have a mix of defense and offense at each position. This would mean brooks and martin not playing as much together but a combo or brooks /lowry and lee/brooks martin/ lowry would be deadly. Lee and lowry once in a while too. I don't think we can have 2 defensive liabilities on the floor at any given position for too many minutes at a time. If we can insert ming,hill,hayes,battier,lee,lowry as our defense unit and mix it nicely with ming,miller,scola,budinger,martin,brooks,ish as the offense unit.. you've got basically 2 units. Almost like the 'hands' team in the nfl we would have our units that we piece in and out. I have noticed rick is already doing this mix where he runs 2 offense and 3 defense or 3 defense and 2 offense. He has been doing this the last few games and it seems to work. He blew that idea the other night when trying to put courtney lee on point(trying to come back I guess) but for the most part he seems to be doing this. If you go with the 2 offense 3 defense approach or 3 defense 2 offense then you are not really needing to look at it from a 'who starts' point of view and more allocation of minutes and a plan. I really do think this is why we are playing more solid (yeah playing grizzlies helps) In the end it might mean starting lowry only because he is the defense to martins offense at the guard position. Not sure if brooks ego can handle that though. If we can do it smoothly and not hurt anyones feelings I can see this team realizing its potential. ming is forced because of minutes to be a cog(in the machine) anyway so he can assume a piece approach. and brooks is a talent no doubt so we can sure use brooks extra offense.
I agree that AB should get a chance to see if he deserves a starting spot before Lowry. As much as I think Lowry is a better starter, I am also part of the group that doesn't believe you should be demoted due to injury. I still feel that ultimate the team will be best served with Lowry starting and AB scorching the secondary off the bench.
My thought is to increase Brooks' trade value as much as possible. Sending him to the bench would decrease his value. We should keep playing him as a starter just like we did with Rafer, up until the day he is traded (eek!).
We might as well make a move and trade Brooks now. His value at this stage would only drop, and letting him start would only expose him even more.
It's a fair thought -- but who would you trade him for? It seems like a lot of people want to trade him but don't have a clear picture on what they want to trade him for. This is the team that is supposedly two deep at every position -- and AB by himself isn't getting you an all-star. It just seems like people want to trade him just to trade him.. I'd like to know what we could reasonably expect back first. The Rafer Alston deal was made to give Brooks the reigns on the PG position and to attain Lowry as a great backup. Alston was aging and Brooks was the young guy they needed to develop. The situation with Lowry & Brooks isn't the same -- Brooks is only a year older than Lowry. No need to force either out the door. Now, if a lottery team wants to talk to me about their unprotected pick for AB, I'd certainly listen.
