Understood, but I think the more difficult part of this is going to be selling a sixth man role to Brooks. I have no doubt that he can adjust to the role and remain an effective player on this team, but the bigger question is whether he'll be willing to. He's tasted the thrill of making big shots in key moments, he's been a starter for almost two full seasons with a virtual green light to shoot whenever he feels its there for him. And career wise, he's supposed to be entering his prime. Hardly the time to start a career as bench support. If he goes to the bench, its almost a guarantee that he leaves once the season ends to a team that gives him the starting role....which gives us even more incentive to try and trade him, but in trading him we lose a critical piece of the team and someone who is not easily replacable. It will be interesting to see what happens with AB when he gets healthy, especially if this team continues the current trend of playing well.
The thrill of making big shots in key moments wouldn't go away -- that's what I was saying. Being the 6th man doesn't mean that you're not in the game in big shot situations. And his green light would be even greener -- as the starting PG, his job is to run the offense, get others involved, and score. As a 6th man, his role would be to get buckets first, second and fourth. Third would be facilitating the offense. I've seen the "he won't like that role" argument a lot in these discussions. Should we really let that play a factor in doing whats possibly best for the team? Brooks should care about winning and doing whats best for the team, not whether or not he gets his name announced at the start of games. As far as the "not the time in his career for bench role" argument, Jason Terry was in his 9th season as a starter when the Mavs made him a full-time sixth man. There's no such thing as "he's too good to be the 6th man" if it means making the team better -- several players who should be starting accepted this role and excelled (Terry, Ginboli, Jamison, Gordon). If he's unwilling to accept the role, that shows a lot about his ability and willingness to put the team first before himself.. and it's not the type of player I'd want on my team. As far as him leaving, he can't unless the Rockets let him. He'll be a restricted FA. Knowing Morey, he'll let him sign an offer sheet and then match.
Because they have personal agenda. They don't want to admit they are wrong even thought reality has shown them they are wrong. They chose to ignore Lowry has a bigger impact in terms of winning two years in a row, instead they just pick everything they could, fact or imagination, logical or illogical to defend AB, or themselves. The don't care about what's good for the team that much. When you see they repeatedly took some stats out of 3 years ago by igonoring the fact Lowr/AB are both different now, the make of the team is totally different now, you know they are in denial, they are desperate.
As I have said. I am perfectly willing to admit I am wrong if Lowry assumes and keeps the starting role. Are you prepared to do the same when it doesnt happen? Or will we keep seeing these r****ded and redundant threads?
Exactly, come on boys....step up. I will also admit I was wrong if Lowry keeps the starting spot, and the coaches make that decision. What say you? We are all for what is good for the Rockets, right? DD
Did you copy/paste this from DD's earlier post or did you just re-write it? Just curious. Just to add on, you don't "win" the argument if Brooks assumes his starting PG role. He's expected to.. he's been the starting PG for the last few years. What we're arguing is that he would be better suited coming in as the 6th man and letting Lowry start. The only way there will be a resolution to the debate is if Brooks does indeed become the 6th man and the Rockets struggle with Lowry as the starter. Otherwise, we're just debating a bunch of hypotheticals that we'll never know the real answer to.
And I am curious why you side step a very blunt and very straight forward "put up or shut up" question?
I've usually backed aaron, but at least for a handful of games it should be kyle, that being said, with the second unit's complete inability to score. Hayes can't, Brick Budinger can't shoot, defend or rebound and Lee is iffy, and Miller's about the only one who at least most of the time has a decent shot, i'm not sure how useful Kyle is creating for people who can't finish.
Sort of, you basically copped out of it. If Lowry keeps the job, I will admit I am wrong, will you do the same if Brooks gets it back? DD
Speaking in terms of the present and this season it appears as if the Rockets are focused on having Lowry become the starting PG at some point. They chose to give Lowry his new contract and there is no possible way that they can afford both Brooks AND Lowry. From a term perspective Lowry appears to be the better fit, he can run the offense better and his defense is MUCH better than that of Brooks. Although he lacks the deep shooting threat he can hopefully improve upon that overtime. Have to wait and see what happens, but I think it will be very unlikely that Brooks is in a rockets uniform come next season.
I'd like to see Bud replaced by Jeffries in the rotation and Brooks running the 2nd unit, at least for a while, that being said, teams like LA, Brooks should start since quick pgs are their one and only weakness.
This is just 100% false. They are paying lots of money to Jared Jeffries for riding the pine, they had 2 MLE players last year in Shane and Trevor at one position. They can certainly afford to keep their top talent, the best teams do that. DD
You're question implies that the coach knows best and his decisions are never to be questioned. Guess what? He's not perfect, and his decisions can be second-guessed as long as there are logical concerns. For instance, against the Bulls, when overtime started, Noah and Boozer each had 5 fouls. Why didn't Adelman instruct his players to go after them as soon as possible? I don't think Scola received the ball in the post until there was 1 minute left in the game, and Noah ended up fouling him. Nevertheless, if Adelman does try to bring Brooks off the bench, and the Rockets as a team suffer, then I'm sure most of the criticism would end. However, if Adelman starts Brooks as soon as possible and the Rockets play poorly, then you can expect the criticism to continue.
Trevor and Shane were both starting at the beginning of the season. We trade for Martin and Ariza eventually gets traded. We took on Jeffries' contract for Hill and the draft considerations so that argument doesn't work either.
Non sequitur much? Jeffries was a bad contract taken on for the other stuff that came in the trade (it would be like saying a team wanted okafur's contract if they took paul+okafur in a trade), unlike Kyle which the front office chose to pay.
Your answer(s): DD, contrary to your own opinion, you will not be wrong if Brooks comes back and Lowry continues to start. It's about results, not about what Adelman does or doesn't do. If Brooks comes off the bench, Lowry starts, and the Rockets struggle -- I will be wrong. If Brooks comes back and immediately starts, we'll never know who was right.
