As rockets fans, we should know no one can really stay on brooks in single coverage, much less "drape" over him. Now if you're talking about playerS, as in multiple defenders, then the whole argument is pointless since most players would have issues with multiple defenders, even Nash. to say nash is a better scorer because he handles multiple defenders better is actually a sign of how well the suns run the pick and roll with nash, not how well nash breaks defenders down on his own. that should be the key, what they can do on their own, not when their teammates come into play.
Yeah, but people are making assumptions about what Brooks will or won't be......so naturally it is up to the realistic folks to show them how stupid that is to do, because no one knows what Brooks will develop into.....or what he won't develop into....all you can do is go....DANG...he is so good already. Exactly ! DD
So, in your view, the best way to look at "scoring ability" is 1-on-1 ability? What about a guy like Reggie Miller who excelled at using screens and doing a catch-and-shoot? Actually, that's something Aaron Brooks has gotten pretty good at (one of the plays the Rockets like the run in third quarters is running Aaron around screens and getting him a 3-point look on the wing). I hear what you're saying, though, about Nash benefiting from playing in a particular system. Right now, the worst shooting team in the league is the New Jersey Nets. If we replaced their starting PG with Nash/Brooks, which player do you think would be a more successful scorer?
durvasa, Did the following posts have anything to do with you starting this thread? http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5033305&postcount=11 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5033563&postcount=28 You're a great poster that always brings the insight but if some people are delusional enough to make these kinds of statements, I don't think any amount of rationale or hard statisitcs will change their minds. Did you expect to hear some kind of compelling argument that would change your mind from the people that voted Brooks? If not, what was the point? To confirm that they had no good reasoning? I'm pretty sure you already knew that would be the case.
Count me on the "Brooks is overrated" team but you have a point. I made the mistake of putting a ceiling on Brooks before the season started that he has already busted through. Although I think the odds of him ever being on Nash's level are slim and none, it isn't impossible. He is certainly continuing to progress as a player as the season goes on. The third year stats are eye-popping even if they illustrate just how much Nash has improved more than anything.
It depends. Nash gets most of his points off of pick and roll, and Amare is enough of a threat that Nash gets some extra space to shoot. While Brooks runs the pick and roll quite a bit too, he's better at creating one-on-one due to his incredible quickness. Not that Nash can't do the same thing, Brooks is just a little better.
It sounds like you would rather discuss whether Brooks will eventually turn into a superior scorer at some point in the future. That's fine by me.
What is delusional is thinking you can somehow project what his ceiling is, in only 70 some odd starts in the NBA..... What we should be doing is sitting back and counting our blessings at getting our own Tony Parkerish type of guard with such a low pick in the first round, and high fiving each other in celebration. DD
apples to oranges...nash excelled late because he had a high basketball IQ, which with time grew and grew, most older guys cant use that extra knowledge because their bodies break down, but nash has stayed in shape and can use the ocean of knowledge he has now. Brooks is on the other side of the spectrum, he came in as somewhat of a hot shot because of his physical abilities and that's what driving him now and he'll get better because of it as his confidence grows...however, i dont think his bball IQ has been or will be great, so it's possible he'll plateau soon and then level off... the roads they are taking are completely different, cant compare them on a linear level like that..
I just think it would save a lot of trouble if we just compared their abilities now, because i hardly believe that Nash and AB were in the exact same situation in their third years (Teams, gameplan etc) It is kind of like a Tmac vs Granger debate, and people picking Tmac because he had better stats in his fourth year. Kind of.
Sure you can, if you can ridiculously compare them now, then why not compare them then? Brooks may develop into a much better player than Nash, no one knows whether he will or won't..... That is entirely my point...... DD
Wow, I was JUST about to type this EXACT same post. Even had Reggie Miller picked out as the example.
Can't agree more. AB is excellent but still has a long way to go to be close to Nash's 20/10 each night.
No Durv, I think this thread is dumb, and a waste of time to try to compare Nash who is arguably one of the all time greats to a guy that is just getting started, and be able to extrapolate what he will or will not become based on such little data. Because when you do compare data from the times that they were the same age, and in the same role, Brooks is a lot better.... So, why not just be happy we got a guy that is growing up before our eyes and capable of such amazing things so soon in his career? He is getting better, and the team is falling in line, if you have not noticed, it is evident by body language and everything else in the last week or so, teamates are not defering to Brooks. He is becomming the Alpha dog out there, and having a leader with his calm demeanor and skillset is going to help out a LOT in the future. DD
Nash could score a lot more if he is been asked to, and he is clutch too. Brooks,on the other hand, is young, energetic, but with less consistency.,
Its not in response to any particular post. Brooks just had a great game. I've been thinking about his role as a score-first PG. One of the things he struggles with (at present) is scoring around the basket. When I checked Nash's numbers at the rim (a player he models a lot of his shots around the basket after), there was a huge difference. The %Ast also jumped out at me. So, I wanted to get people's views on what Brooks does well as a scorer compared to Nash, and where they feel he can improve.
I agree DD you dont know. I wouldn't put money on AB becoming better than Nash, but if you watch his game he does have a chance to be better. The one area I think AB wont become better than Nash is making his team mates better. But everything else I think AB has a chance to be better at.
Then ask that question, because the poll makes what you just said seem disengenious and backtrackish. Brooks can improve everywhere, his passing, his finishing, but honestly, I think he would improve the most when he gets the RESPECT from the officials that Nash gets. Brooks gets killed on his drives....and once he starts getting more calls and continues to improve he will be in the 20s most every night. Also take note his turnovers have been dropping, and his shooting % going up......all he needs for assists to go up is to get another shooter on the floor with him to replace the flagging Battriza combo....he gets stuck holding up. I keep looking up expecting to see a tiny saddle on Brooks back because the entire starting unit outside of Luis is riding him. DD™
brooks might have more talent but nash is more skilled. he knows the dos and donts of the game which is why hes very efficient.
