and based on this season nash is only more efficient, there's hardly a gap between them when it comes to who puts it in the basket more. Nash scores like half a FG more, but slightly less 3pts and FTs.
Excellent point and thanks for clearly pointing out an area where Brooks needs some serious work. We all know Nash has never been a burner, an "uber-athlete," but his change of speed and deception, as you put so well, get him many of those deadly open looks. Paul is quite different from Nash, but you're spot on in the "deception and change of speed" aspect of his game. I think AB will grow a lot in those areas... he's far from done improving, IMO. edit: just read page 3, where durvasa said much the same thing, so you're both right.
Frye taking his man out of the picture most of the time and the threat of a last second pass to a wide open Amare, who'll make you a poster in a split second.
So we should be dancing around like Hobbits at a birthday party instead of discussing various aspects of their game?
IDK why but i have read most comments that Nash is better scorer than brooks but this aint actually a fair comparison because nash has been in the NBA longer than brooks but still BROOKS will be better scorer than nash in later yrs(if he keeps playing like this) don't reply to me that brooks will be better assists player...because i never wrote lol but i voted brooks because currently brooks has been better than nash. :grin:
This is a very unfair comparison for both players for obvious reasons. The real comparison is that Nash is in a far different class than Brooks in all aspects of their game so it ends there.
IDK why but i have read most comments that Nash is better scorer than brooks but this aint actually a fair comparison because nash has been in the NBA longer than brooks but still BROOKS will be better scorer than nash in later yrs(if he keeps playing like this) but i voted brooks because currently brooks has been better than nash. Fixed by me! :grin:
Brooks is a score-first PG. He's got some good skills, great speed, but obviously doesn't possess the shot making polish, ball-handling, and creativity of Steve Nash. If he can make strides in improving those areas, combined with his athletic gifts, he'll go to the next level.
Nash is the better scorer but I don't know if it could be any more clear that his scoring and passing numbers are extremely inflated by the system he plays in. It is a system that yields good results at times but has huge holes which will always prevent a team that plays that way from winning a championship. How effective a scorer someone is isn't always dependent only on their own personal scoring ability (I know it sounds ridiculous, but it's true). Steve Nash's passing ability coupled with players who are a threat to score at multiple areas of the court creates an environment where it is dangerous to apply adequate pressure defensively. Still, in any system Nash is a great scorer and a very good player. I doubt Brooks reaches that point. He does not have the size or other skills that make up Nash's deadly combination.
I think brooks is a better scorer, nash is probably a more effecient shooter if that makes any sense. Nash has a govenor on his offensive output and it kicks in when he starts to score too much. I think people get surprised by nash and his scoring, but i don't think its something he wants to do. The offense is designed around him much like peyton manning in football. Brooks is more in the iverson mode in which he can drop 50 on you without any regard. He has a scorer's mentality to a point. Nash is and always have been a knockdown shooter like stockton.
Nash kept doing it even when they got Shaq and slowed the offense down. He keeps doing it with D'Antoni gone. He did it in Dallas.
My issue with statements like these is it says Brooks doesn't possess those things. However, i think we need to differentiate between not having and not being able to show them. I believe brooks has the creativity. At his size the guy must have spent most of his life coming up with different ways to score, to drive, to pass, etc. Not many players can do that little scoop shot off the opposite side of the basket like he does, not as easy, as consistently and as cleanly. That takes some creativity to be able to accomplish that. Passing is the issue, he doesnt seem to be creative there, but i think the problem is he just cant act it out because of his size. If brooks was 6'2 ish like Nash his numbers would instantly improve. I know it seems like you can make that argument for everyone, that if taller they would be better, but it's not always the case. Brooks has all the skills, i mean the guy tore it up in Oregon. Watch some of his clips from back then. He shows some stuff he hasnt shown here. I think part of the reason why is because physically it's not possible against bigger and longer guys. The other part is all confidence, it's up and down. you can tell when his confidence is good because he's got a jump to his step, he's talking, he's showing emotion and he's pretty damn terrific when he's like that. when he's passive though he seems very average or even below average. The skills are there, he just needs to bring them out. I'm not sure why we're even comparing him to nash though, as if he needs to match Nash's abiltities to go to the next level. All he's gotta do is be the best Aaron Brooks possible, if that means being a scoring point, so be it. There's different roads to the all-star game.
Size could be part of it. From what I've seen, Nash sets himself apart from nearly every player other than maybe Kobe Bryant in pure shot making ability. Brooks is not at that level. There's a huge difference between a guy who shoots 80% at the rim and a guy who shoots 50%. Its not like Nash is a LeBronian athlete. He's a shrimp compared to most of the people at the basket, and he's able to score there at a higher efficiency than most 7-footers. That is skill. I'd give Brooks in edge in pure speed, with and without the ball. He's probably got a better first step. Brooks is a better cutter, and he's more effective freeing himself with screens. He doesn't have Nash's ball-handling and instinctive awareness when playing in traffic. He doesn't have the pure shooting ability that Nash has, and he's not as effective with the assorted flip shots and hook shots around the basket. Nash's passing ability also creates openings for him as a scorer. For all those reasons, I give Nash the edge overall.
But, i did point out earlier nash has always had a PF or C who's a perimeter threat since he raised his numbers to al-star status in Dallas. Again, it may be a coincidence, but every year since he had a dirk, frye, marion, or diaw playing alongside him. Not every team has a guy like that, yet Nash has had one every year on two different teams since he blew up. Last year, it was down to just diaw in that role, and he struggled all year, leading up to him being traded. Meanwhile Shaq was clogging up the middle more than ever, and during that stretch Nash's scoring took a hit and was at the 12-14 ppg range. It finally increase around the final month, to 20 ppg, but that was largely in part two 3 big scoring games he had. This year, without shaq cloggin the paint and Frye stretching the D, nash's scoring is higher than ever... It's not just D'antoni or the suns system, it's the ability of teammates to draw opponents out and unclog the court (provide spacing), allowing for more movements from nash and his teammates.
