good thoughts. I have said several times, Brooks is not our best choice. he has a serious drawback as a guard that he desn't have good vision and passing sense in his mind. i meant he doesn't have the sense that who and which strategy (involves more teammates? postup Yao? P&R, etc) is the best to score for a certain situation on the floor. Ish can do better than him at this point, plus Ish's passing skills are much better than Brooks.
mistakes can be cut down after he plays more games. but something in mind is not that easy to be changed.
DD, you know what this is mostly about. Most of the posters dont like brooks because when he is playing,they dont think he gives yao the ball enough. I think its really shallow that alot of these posters cant understand role and team construction. The same characters,same debate, yet our own history tells us you dont need nash or cp3 to win a title.kenny smith has 2 rings and parker has 3. Paxson,bj,fisher account for 11 ringsand neither guy avg 5 asst a game. The role of brooks is to make plays,but posters confuse regular season success vs playoff success. In the playoffs, its about making shots and plays under fire. The 06 rox starting 5 had the highest +/- of any team in the league, but against utah,they made shane,hayes,rafer,and luther take shots under pressure and they couldnt. Lowry or ish starting will be a disaster against playoff caliber basketball teams.
Leeb, I totally get it, it boggles my mind that people can't see the value of a guy that can create his own shot as well as others. Wait until Ish is asked to create a shot late in the game and see how successful he is when players let him shoot it. Heck, we saw them collapse against San Antonio......Brooks is the closer on this team and he will be missed. At least by those that understand the role he is being asked to fill...... The Morey quote in my sig says it all......he gets it, I don't know why so many on here don't. DD
The Yao only brigade have only recently re-emerged. They've been baying to start Hill and fire Adelman. They weren't posting last season when the idea of playing Brooks from the bench gained ground on this board.
Goodbye, reality. I mean, I love most of what I've seen from Ish, but right now we should just hope that he can hit 35% from the FT line.
Your argument would be much sounder, without the first 2 sentences. Discussion should be more about content of a post, rather than other posters. Is it really necessary to second-guess other posters' intentions, while you can't prove anything? Moreover, you can't even prove your own intention. So what's the point of posters attacking each other, or questioning "fan-hood", which is quite fashionable around here?
Dude where have you been the last couple of years, for me it is a case of fighting fire with fire...if you can't beat them join them. I used to be respectful, took it for years, and got none of it in return.....screw that noise.... If that is how it is, that is how it is going to be. DD
Get em DD! I used to jump into the fray with ya. It's just so tiring for me. So many different threads all essentially about the same thing. Then with bush league Manu screwing up AB? Half the threads on page 1 are about Brooks/Smith/Lowry. Can we get some consolidation?
Would you agree that Ish/Lowry creates for OTHERS better than Brooks? And, if so, isn't it then clearly better to just bring Brooks off the bench and have him close the game later on, kind of like how Rondo takes backseat to Pierce later in a game despite having no shooting skills whatsoever?
I still love Brooks. Though, maybe he is better as a spark plug off the bench. The only way I see Brooks as expendable is if we can get a star player in return. Truth be told, I actually wouldn't mind seeing us trade Lowry now only because he's gotten into this habit of shooting threes lately. He isn't drawing the foul and 1's like he did last season. His injury may have a lot to do with it. If Lowry is going to continue to play the way he has this season, I'd rather the minutes go to Ishmael instead.
Ok, let's be fair. This is a better description: Rocket's with Brooks: 3.0-3.5 quarters of pure chemistry Rockets without Brooks: 2.75 quarters of explosive chemistry Part of the win last night was because we played the T-Wolves and part of the win last night was increased chemistry from Ish. Ish got everyone in the mix primarily because he takes fewer shots per game than AB does. When there's more shots to go around it's only reasonable that role players score more points. It's a simple game of statistics, more shots equals more points. What makes Ish have a slight slight slight edge is the fact that he creates more plays for the rest of the team. Ish makes it so that a greater amount of teamplay occurs. This has its positives and negatives. AB is a different type of player entirely. His shooting spreads the floor and creates more OPEN opportunities for the rest of the team. Brooks is sort of like (don't shoot me for saying this) McGrady in that his offensive prowess opens the floor for his teammates. Brooks helps stop opposing runs and ultimately can get some points on the board in a crunch. Aaron gives this team fast points, but at the detriment of not getting others involved nearly as much. Neither one is entirely better than the other, in fact it will be the duality of the two (and triality with Lowry) that will give Houston an edge. Ultimately Brooks will space the floor and Ish will get the rest of the team in gear. To say that one invalidates the other is an oversimplification.
Brooks = the poor man's Allen Iverson Ish = a faster Rafer Alston with a better court vision BTW, OMR specifically pointed out the second half of the Spurs game and people still just dismiss him by saying "Wolves suck." How convenient.
Well I will admit... it seems that since AB was injured at the end of the first half of the Spurs game the team has had a little more chemistry. It is still too early, though. They've only played 1 and a half games without him. If the team is still playing like this when AB comes back from his injury, then yeah, you pretty much have to bring him off the bench.
Seeing these threads lately about AB makes me disgusted that some of you clowns call yourselves Rocket fans. You blame our problems in the spurs game on a guy that scores 18 points (while shooting very efficiently), outplays Tony Parker in the first half. I hear that Ish Smith is the next Rajon Rondo (I mean seriously, come on, really now). I hear the Kyle Lowry (who is shooting 21% from the field, isn't even getting the line, has a 6:5 assist to turnover ratio, is having a TERRIBLE season thus far) is the answer. Are you guys crazy? No really, I want to know. If anything, Ish makes LOWRY expendable because he does everything he does but better. How on earth do you expect to win a title with Lowry starting and Ish backing him up? Neither of them can score, and only one runs the team well (please don't say Lowry is the next Steve Nash, he does not run the team any better than AB does). This really is absurd. Suspensions should be handed out for the lunacy thats been going on the past week.
this. I completely agree, and seeing as though he wants a new contract, I bet he would be fine to do anything the coaches want him to.
AB and AI are only similar in that they are both small, fast, and volume scorers. Any similarities end there. AI was a mediocre shooter, great penetrator and finisher, and when he choses to be a pretty good (if not reckless) playmaker. If AB had a faction of the toughness and balls AI shows in getting to the rim, I would be totally satisfied with him. Lowry is a much better comparison to AI. Ish is best described as a smaller and much less experienced version of Rondo. He stays in front of his man, fights through screens fairly well, understands his limitations, and looks to involve those around him.
