I think if we had a go to guy he would still be valuable as having 2 of them ala Boston and LA is better, yes. DD
Ha me too. The master logitician is not worth the energy. @LTF Heres what I see: Lowry supporters say he is a better defender and runs the team better. I see a team that has had Lowry as the starter for the majority of its games and is still near the worst in the league defensively. This leads me to believe the bulk of the defensive impact is elsewhere, so I dismiss the the idea that it is a necessity to have him in the starting lineup due to his defense. I see a team whose offense ranks went down when Brooks left the starting lineup. This leads me to believe that while Lowry may be a more pure PG, but that does not necesarily make us better offensively. Coupled with my knowledge of how the Adelman offense works, I dismiss his suppossed superiority in passing, as I know it is not critical to be a great passing PG in our system. I could be wrong, Brooks could be traded, Lowry could start, but I highly doubt it. I can admit this. Can Lowry brigadeers admit the same? Because all I hear is how it is a foregone conclusion that Brooks is on his way out and Lowry is the golden child. Yet somehow, this point of view is invulnerable from being proven false due to the circumstances of the team and its injuries/coach. The Lowry train can continue, but you are all in for a long sad season when your hopes never come to fruition.
I'm gonna attack this debate from another direction... Trade them both to NO for Chris Paul - problem solved! [/debate] :grin:
Still near the worst? I love how you leave out information.......we were the worst or second worst team defensively when we were 0-5. Now we are ranked 22nd defensively. Thats a significant jump in any context. If we took out the first 5 games, we would probably be ranked 18 or higher defensively. Also, the most important stat: 7-8 with Lowry at the helm, 0-5 with Brooks.
I think it's unrealistic to expect one player, especially a point guard, to completely change the amount of points the team is giving up. Nobody is saying that Aaron Brooks is THE reason we're not a good defensive team -- they're saying that Aaron Brooks next to Kevin Martin and Luis Scola are the main reasons. That is basically three one-way players who can't play a lick of defense. So how do you improve that? Lowry over Brooks? Lee over Martin? Hayes/Hill over Scola? Adding Lowry to the starting five seems like the least disruptive move of the three and it helps balance out our overly-offensive starting five. Did you see Lowry last night? He was terrific defensively, extremely disruptive on that end. Also, you didn't mention the fact that Yao Ming has also been absent for Lowry's entire stint basically -- Yao makes a HUGE difference defensively, even when he isn't blocking shots. Brooks is a 15-20 PPG scorer.. did you expect our offense to stay the same when he's not playing? What about when our best low post player went out (Yao)? Didn't you expect some offensive regression? It's not fair to judge Lowry when he's running an incomplete team. We need Brooks to be on this team and scoring -- we'd just prefer it to be in the 6th man role. We need Yao to give us some stability down low.. who knows if we'll ever get that though. Saying he's not superior to Brooks in passing and that Adelman's offensive system doesn't require a great passing guard are two separate, different arguments. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who agree with you that Brooks is as good or a better distributor than Lowry. Lowry is not a shoot-first PG.. that much is obvious. Brooks is... that much is obvious. I've never said that I wanted Brooks to be traded -- and neither have most of the Lowry supporters. We want him as the offensive gun off the bench, not in another team's uniform. We agree that we need Brooks scoring -- we disagree on where and when we need it. For all the hate you guys are pouring on wekko, he's made some great points/arguments without attacking either of you. I think he deserves to be unblocked and given a second chance. As I was explaining to DD, we won't know which one of us is right until they TRY Lowry as a starter and Brooks as a 6th man. Without ever trying that, how could you possibly say either of us is right or wrong? You guys were saying you'd admit you were wrong if Lowry starts.. but you wouldn't be. You wouldn't be wrong until the team proves that it's better off with Brooks as the 6th man. It's like if I was arguing that JT should be playing ahead of Ish Smith. Would I be right because Adelman momentarily moved JT into the rotation? No, of course not.. it would depend on how the team performs with JT vs. Ish. Does that make sense?
I defense has increased tremendously once Lowry has started and thats without a shot blocker at Center. Your argument is so freakin flawed that the bulk of the defense if come from somewhere else. Where the hell is it coming from then? Offense? Who gives a crap if the offense has slipped a little. We are winning games and thats all that matters. We still score enough points to win. Sure Lowry could be trade, but why? His attitude, work ethic, and overall play has been much better than Brooks this season. We still need both players in my honest opinion. Brooks and Martin can score but Lowry is a better fit with Martin due to Lowry being a better defender than Brooks. Brooks should be with the second team because could be the offense spark that the 2nd team is missing now that Budinger sucks.
I look at Lowry and Brooks as 1A and 1B - they're attributes are different but needed on this team. I've always wanted Brooks to start, but here are some thing's i've concluded with the way the season has gone... The reason Brooks had an outstanding year last year and NEEDED to be a starter last year was because of our need for a scoring punch. Hayes, Scola, Battier, Ariza and Brooks - we had 2 legit scorers and 3 defensive players. This year we started with Yao, Scola, Battier, Martin and Brooks - 4 potential scorers and 1 1/2 defensive players (i count Yao as half for shot blocking ability)...and we saw that the results weren't that great on the defensive end. With Lowry inserted to start games, you have 3 scorers, and 2 1/2 defensive players (again, Yao is 1/2 for shot blocking) OR 2 scorers, and 3 defensive players (without Yao in the lineup). We've seen that our bench is VERY inconsistent scoring - hence our scoring droughts for 3-7 mins in the 2nd and 4th quarters. This is where you can unleash Brooks and let him do what he does best, which is SCORE. He doesn't have to worry about assist numbers or getting others involved. You cant simply say Player A should start over B cuz he's better. You have to look at the makeup of the team this year vs. last year's and what the needs are vs. what the needs were. Down the stretch is where you can either go big, small, offensive or defensive - depending on what's needed down the stretch. Some games, Brooks will finish, some Lowry, some both. I would hate to see either of them traded because they're both VERY valuable to this team in different ways.
A few million here or there isn't going to mean much to the salary issues, we're going to be over either way, it's more to do with how much Les is willing to handle as you enter luxury region (but that's really a decision for him and him alone to make). Kyle's on what, 4.75m? this year, at worst he's overpaid by 1m or so, which means very very little to the salary situation (we didn't even use our full mle this year)
Yes, I agree, as I have said numerous times. The best of course of action is move Hayes into the starting lineup because he can play the ideal PF role in the Adelman system, better then Lowry can play the ideal PG role. See my sig for when that was determined. Furthermore Scola fits more with the bench group, because he can run, than Brooks does. Yet for some reason we don't see very many people suggesting that solution, because "defense" is just a guise people use because they dislike Aaron Brooks for whatever reason. Yao has been a non factor in his limited time. Nor is it fair to judge Brooks with an incomplete team. The only time we had a complete team was two years ago and the results speak for themselves. Yet we arent supposed to use that because supposedly everything is different now. I never said Brooks was a better distributer. 99% of Lowry supporters want Brooks traded. Just open any thread. And we don't agree that "we need Brook's scoring". Our point, our atleast my point, is that he is needed to properly run the 3 man games that are the core of offense and I believe management agrees. If Lowry can continue his three point shooting, this changes this dramatically. The ability to space the floor creates other shots w/o the need for penetration, which is the whole point of the system. With proper scouting, any competent defensive team will be able to shut down how Lowry creates. This isnt apparent now, but you make this switch and you will wonder why you just crushed in the playoffs. Furthermore, Brooks is critical to the inside/outside offensive set that they will milk through Yao. Without Brooks on the floor, teams have the ability to double down on our post up players and completely shut down the offense. Again, most people don't know what they are looking at or why the Rockets have bad stretches where we get multiple turnovers in a row. This is the reason. No comment. Its clear to me how Adelman/Morey are constructing this team. There is clearly roles for each player and each function offensively. Theres a reason the bench crew is all finishers. There is a reason all the starting wing players are 3 point shooters. They built synergy. I understand the way they are thinking and I agree with it. Heck you could be right, Lowry may very well be better, but I have the utmost confidence they are going to stick to thier system.
I'd be on board to see LESS of Hayes, not more of him. He frustrates me to no end. And Hayes is in the lineup right now.. the same lineup you're saying has made no defensive progress. Who would play center for you? Jordan Hill? You said yourself Yao has been a non-factor, so we can't just throw him in there. It's not a guise -- I don't know why you're so defensive about Brooks to think that. Martin and Brooks is probably the worst defensive back court in the NBA -- I'm not looking for a reason to diminish Brooks role when I'm saying I'd rather have a defensive PG to pair with Martin. I think it would be better for Martin as well, as he would be to go-to scorer on the perimeter to start games instead of not knowing whether or he or Brooks should take over. Brooks would have a clearly defined role when he entered the game. I'm not judging Brooks on an incomplete team -- I know exactly what he can and cannot do. One of those cannots is defend.. which inconveniently is also one of Martins cannots. Again, it's not a guise, it's just posters wanting to breakup the poster boys of bad perimeter defense. Bringing up our team from two years ago is irrelevant, as I said. We are a completely different team with different personnel and a different offensive scheme. You can't replace Martin with Artest and tell me there's minimal difference, just like you can't switch out Landry with Hill and tell me we're about the same. I've addressed that in our earlier debate. I've posted the most times in this thread -- I've opened up plenty of threads about Brooks-Lowry. Obviously 99% was an exaggeration, but I think you'd be surprised at how many are NOT calling for him to be traded.. more than 50% I'd wager. Most of us realize that his scoring, his best attribute, is sorely needed. If we can't agree that we need Brooks' scoring, I don't know what we'll agree on. Even DD is on board with that.. I think you're on an island there. Losing Brooks hurt us most in the scoring department, not the 'synergy' department. Lowry has done just fine spacing the floor for others -- you're acting as if he's receiving the Rondo treatment and opposing teams are camping the lane shutting down our other players and forcing him to shoot. That couldn't be further from the truth. Again, the crux of your argument seems to be Lowry replacing Brooks, which is not my position whatsoever. I desperately want Brooks' scoring off of our bench and I think he'll be just as big of a factor as he was when he was starting. Your conjecture that we'll get crushed in the playoffs with Lowry is unwarranted, as we'll still have Brooks. You just told me Yao was a non-factor, now you're telling me that Brooks is critical to offensive sets that we'll milk through Yao? Ok.... you can't have it both ways, buddy. Look, I'm sure your scenarios sound plausible and realistic in your head, but they aren't likely. You say that without Brooks, teams will double down and completely shut down our offense. Well.... WHY HAVEN'T THEY? We haven't had Brooks for weeks and our offense has not been routinely shut down. We give Scola plenty of touches in the post every game and not once have I noticed a team doubling him and shutting down all of our other options. Yet, you think this will magically start happening when we get Yao back? It doesn't make sense, sorry. And FWIW, the Rockets have had plenty of bad stretches of not scoring and turning the ball over in the past few years -- all when Brooks was the primary point guard. This is pretty well known and it's laughable that you're attempting to pass it off as only occurring because Lowry is starting. Most people don't know what they're looking at when they see those stretches.. unfortunately, neither does Adelman, as he's yet to solve it. larsv8 should replace Adelman -- he has all the answers!
They maybe shouldn't mess with what is working right now and keep Lowry as the starter. We're playing well as of late and putting Brooks in as the starter could ruin it. We'll just have to wait and see I guess.
This post was made in another Lowry thread in response to the Mike Bibby - Jason Williams comparison on the old Kings. Our situation is similar (Aaron Brooks plays a lot like Mike Bibby - scoring PG who passes semi well, Jason Williams plays a *bit* like Lowry - pushes the ball very fast, great on the fast break). The post illustrates why Brooks needs to be starting. http://www.basketball-reference.com.../willija02.html http://www.basketball-reference.com.../bibbymi01.html As a King, Williams averaged far more assists than Bibby as a King (Bibby peaking at 5.4 apg and Williams peaking at 7.4 apg). Notice another thing with Bibby after he joined the Kings? His apg dropped from 8.1 apg to 5.4 apg. That is a clear indication that the style of offense he ran (the Princeton) does NOT cater to a ball dominating PG. Its arguable whether Bibby was a better passer than Williams (he was a better/more efficient scorer, which is why Adelman probably chose him in the end). The Rockets offense as it stands is this, I'll lay it out for you: 1) Lowry brings ball up, passes to Chuck/Scola in the high-post. 2) Back cuts and motion is run, and if nothing opens up this occurs: 3) Ball passed back to Lowry and a PnR happens. Why do you want Brooks running the PnR instead of Lowry? He makes the same passes Lowry does AND has a deadly jumpshot. And if need be he can isolate at the end of a broken play and get a decent shot, something Lowry absolutely cannot do. Another reason you want Brooks in the starting lineup? Once double teams come from Scola's post-ups, he can spread the floor tremendously well and knock down open threes (something Lowry again absolutely cannot do consistently). This is so easy to see it baffles me why you Lowry defenders can't see it.
Brooks actually is probably better suited as a bench scoring specialist, like ty lawson or jamal crawford. He would probably play much more effecient in this role.
Yes he does...Brooks and Lowry are equal in passing ability, Lowry just looks to pass more often whereas Brooks looks to shoot more often. They make the same types of passes though if you are paying attention. DD
Exaggerations aplenty here. The Rockets were the 3rd best offensive team in the league when Brooks went down and now they're 7th, and if you take out the 2nd game of the season (which Brooks by the way played horribly in) then the Rockets with Brooks are the same offensively as the Rockets without Brooks. And defensively, they are almost 10 PP100 better than they were after 5 games, which is A LOT.
When I talk of lineups I am talking about the fully healthy lineup where Yao is in playing extended minutes, not the stop gap one they have been running out the past month. Brooks / Martin / Battier / Hayes / Yao The defensive juggernaut of a front court that led us to top 5 defenses 3-4 years ago added with the most offensively explosive backcourt we have now. Brooks has a a clearly defined role now, as does Lowry. Yes you are. You think they assembled this group to promote Lowry? Nope, they want to play the group they brought together. You are condemning it before we have even seen what it is capable of, which is foolish. Addressed it yes, but to say it is irrelevant is just wrong. Same coaches, same offensive scheme, same personell. There are obviously some changes, but same group philosophy. After reading your responses I am quite sure you arent understanding what the points are. Yao was a non factor in the first 5 games, which is what I was refering too when you said he was. Again I am planning for the future, when Yao is recovered and we are five strong again, not for which PG I think goes better with the stop gap system we have been using in our main 2 players absence. It makes perfect sense and all the decent defensive teams have done it. However when it does happen and we lose, our r****ded fan base likes to pick a scapegoat and make a stupid "Battier is horrible thread" or "Martin can't close out games" instead of seeing why our players are missing those shots and why everything doesnt seem to be running smoothly. Why should I replace Adelman? I have clearly said I am on board with what he is doing and am simply explaining to you why things are the way they are. You are the one screaming for changes?
