Who gives a crap if Brooks can score the ball at will. The point comes down to is who will make the TEAM BETTER. Last 3 champions. Rondo = not a good shooter, but makes everyone around him better Fisher = clutch, good shooter, but cannot create his own shot People are overrating Brooks so much. Everything is about the system. If you have players that fit the system then that's all that matters. As someone pointed out earlier, Brooks is playing like T-Mac and he is not nearly as good as what T-Mac used to be. If anything Brooks should be the spark off the bench.
I did not expect to see it or say it, but it seems that when AB left the game a black cloud was lifted and in blew a breath of fresh air. IS was so obviously enjoying playing. Made me realize that I seldom get the feeling that AB is enjoying playing. With IS things just started clicking. Good things started happening. The other guys seemed to be enjoying playing with him. Battier came to life - playing better and "coaching/leading" like I seem to remember him from years past. Somehow with AB out Battier showed he is not a has-been. That was a joy to see (and question).
HEY! Look what I did there! The same argument you're using right now to defend Brooks - claiming what his role is on the team and that what is being asked of him- is the same that many made for Ariza last year but they were completely wrong about that in your eyes. The focus was improving the backup QB last year (in chase) as you and others argued for. The only difference? Last season both Coach Adelman and Morey defended Ariza stating that they were telling him to take those shots and keep shooting. This season? I could be wrong but I dont recall Coach Adelman (or Morey) saying that Brooks' primary role on the team this year is to score the ball. As worzel mentioned in the post above the one I quoted (and modified) of yours Adelman HAS mentioned how Brooks needs to improve the aspects of his game that exemplify a more "traditional" PG. So honestly I have no idea where all this "scoring PG" comes from so far this season I have yet to hear anyone from the Rockets coaching staff to front office define what Aaron's role is outside of his improvements on passing/vision/getting others involved. The last two teams Adelman has had success with in Sacramento and Portland didnt have "scoring PGs" they had PGs that could score. Bibby in his first 3 years in Sacramento averaged 16 points a game -- I only mention the first 3 years because thats when the Kings had their greatest success as a team... Bibby did go on to score more on the Kings as they lost talent and players to injury but the Kings did not achieve the same level of success when Bibby was scoring in the upper teens and 20s. Also while Bibby's assists averaged in his first 3 years were around 5 apg similar to what Brooks is averaging now, but Bibby was on a Sacramento team where (again in his first 3 season with Sac - when they had the most team success) there were multiply guys averaging 4 assists or more (with the 03-04 team having 5 guys averaging 4 or more assists per game -- insane) Right now the Rockets do not have that sort of team passing at all where we have multiple guys averaging that many assists. Last season only Lowry and Brooks averaged more than 4 assists and Ariza who averaged 3.8 is no longer with the team. This season its only Brooks and Smith is averaging 3.8 assists and Lowry 3 though I dont think either of those two's stats hold much weight with their 2 games played (I would expect both of theirs to go up though the more time they get and down once again if they are benched) Also if you look at Bibby's time in Vancouver he averaged 8 assists his last two seasons there so it wasnt like he was always a guy who averaged around 5 assists a game and could score. He did both equally well and was a more traditional PG that could score. He gave the ball up more with the team Sacramento had and fit into the system Adelman put in place there. Under Rick Adelman, Terry Porter averaged 17.7 points as a starter, but he also averaged 7 assists (years 1989-1993). During those 4 years though Porter averaged 12.8 shots per game which is very good. Right now Aaron is averaging 13.4 shots a game for his 16.4 points and last year averaged 16.2 shots for his 19.6 average. Both are not bad averages and percentages but not at the same level as Porter who is the far better player than Brooks is (and to be honest the Porter comparison probably isnt fair at all to Brooks) Unless you are trying to imply that you know Adelman's system better than Adelman does. To me when Adelman has had success he has had PGs that could score but also were good "traditional" point guards. This Rockets team and the one last year are a far cry from those Sacramento teams where everyone racked up assists this team doesnt have the same quality of passers on that team. So while its fine and dandy for Bibby to have averaged 5 assists in that time because the starting lineup averaged so many as a whole its not ok right now in Houston when the rest of the team arent the same type of passers as Christe, Webber, and Divac were. To me if I were to compare this Rockets team to anyone of Adelman's previous teams it would be those late 80s/early 90s Blazers team and that team had a PG that averaged more assists per game than Brooks does now and Clyde who averaged around 6 himself. So unless Kevin Martin somehow drinks some special potion that makes him a skilled passer over night this Rockets team is not like those Blazers team either. The only thing is that is has shown is that Adelman has had good "traditional" PGs that can score. Brooks is not that he is just 2 guard masquerading as a point guard. Long term wise I dont think that will be the solution to a winning basketball team. And before you point to your sig Morey said "CAN" that isnt anything concrete its a possibility, just like how Patrick Patterson CAN win rookie of the year...can PP do that? He sure CAN but doesnt mean he will and from what we've seen in this season so far he probably wont but cant rule it out....same with the championship PG argument when was the last time we saw a team that led his team in scoring help his team reach the finals? Tony Parker and he was 21, 23, and 25 years old in those 3 championship seasons and he had one of the best EVER to play the game on his team to lead. Brooks will be 26 in January so comparisons to Parker to me are off base because 1) Parker did all the things Brooks hopes to do at a much younger age and 2) Parker had the benefit of playing with an all-time great in Duncan something Brooks will never be able to do. Trying to compare the careers of the two because their style of play or scoring is similar would not necessarily work in my eyes Parker was already a multiple time all-star and a Finals MVP when he turned 26 Brooks has neither of those. So Brooks CAN be of course but by that token Derek Fisher and Jason Williams already HAVE been a starting point guard on a championship team, for sure. Taking a look at last season Brooks was the #3 scoring PG in the game with only Derrick Rose and Tyreke Evans ahead of him. Of the top 10 PG scorers in the league (billups, deron williams, steph curry, stuckey, nash, westbrook, jennings - in that order ppg wise) only Stuckey averaged less assists per game than Brooks at the point guard position. Nash, Williams, Westbrook and Rose were in the top 10 of assists last year too from the point guard position. Outside of Stuckey - whom I think Brooks is a better player than anyway - it seems to me that the other 8 point guards who also could be look upon as "scoring PGs" also do a pretty good and better job than Brooks at distributing the ball. Sure, team roles are different based on team needs but the point I am trying to make is that you can be a scorer and be a good distributor as well. And again at the point guard position the only point guard to average more turnovers and less assists than Brooks last year was Johnny Flynn - another undersized scorer trying to play PG. The other point guards who averaged more turnovers per game also averaged more assists per game. (FWIW Brooks was also in the "top 10" turnovers per game for point guards last season) Once again many of these players, Nash, Williams, Rose, Westbrook are far better players than Brooks is, but if Brooks is going to be that all-star that you and others want him to be he cant just do it with scoring alone. Honestly I dont think he will ever be that player...Brooks is by no means old but he is not in that "young" range where he can still be drastically improving his game. Of the top 10 scoring PGs last season only Nash and Billups are significantly older than Brooks and Deron Williams is less than a year older. Everyone else is younger than Brooks so if people believe Brooks can and will improve because he is still young there is no reason to believe that everyone else on that list besides Nash and Billups wont do the same. As for this "instant chemistry" I dont think it really has to do anything with that Brooks himself but his skillset. We've replaced a "scoring PG" with a "traditional" PG that cannot score but yet still outscored the Spurs 69-67 in the 2 qtrs and OT that Smith started in (probably would have been a wider gap if Lee hit those FTs..oh well) and 120-94 in the Wolves game -- once again its the wolves I am not going to rest all my hopes on that one game against that team, but clearly the team has played well against the spurs well losing its two big scorers in Martin and Brooks and yet outscored them. And if the Rockets go on to beat both the Wizards, Pacers and Knicks on the road maybe something has to be re-thunk in having a "scoring" PG While all 3 of those teams arent exactly playoff contenders its never easy to win on the road (celtics lost to the cavs after all) so to me coming out with a 3-0 record against those teams will mean more to me than the last 6 quarters, especially if Smith (or Lowry if he plays) continues to improve the cohesiveness of the starters. I really dont believe Smith is the long term starter either at the PG spot, until Lowry gets 100% I cannot definitely say he is either. Heck maybe the best starting 5 could be Lee and Martin and then have Lowry and Brooks come off the bench. Note: I am not trying to go down the path of another Ariza debate..been there and done that...... I just find it funny and a bit ironic that you are using similar/same justifications for Brooks that many did for Ariza did last year. Except that they were wrong then and you are right now when evidence from the Coaches and management show otherwise when talking about what their respective roles were on those teams.
nice post. I like what Ish has brought and Aaron can see how he can fit in better and hit ALL his teammates with better passes and pick his spots to shoot more. Instead of getting all emotional and angry when the refs call a foul or his match up starts scoring a few buckets on him, he could just settle down and get a good play the next time down the court. Whether he scores on a good shot or sets up a teammate for a basket. Rick's offense is a motion type offense and when all or at least 4 guys on the floor are scoring, it makes it easier for everyone to get better/easier/open shots.
Yes, I realize that the arguments could be considered similar but they really aren't if you look at the way they performed their assigned roles. Trevor only did what was asked of him by the team, this is true....but.... He sucked at it....which is why they jettisoned him at the first opportunity for a backup SG. Where the argument diverges is that Brooks is actually REALLY good at the role he is being asked to play. And he was at 7apg when the injury happened...and had a 2.5 to 1 Assist to turnover ratio, he had seriously shown improvement and was playing against GREAT teams.... Big difference in arguments, but your post was nicely written. DD
How about Tony Parker? 4 ring, Finals MVP. Tony Parker = Score First, Score Second PG, Can't play defense, not a good passer. Humm that remain me someone, o yes AB. The player we need to be a spark of the bench and run the team like he did last year is Kyle and he has been injured and when not he hasn't played well. Good we have Ish who can help us do than and be the a player Kyle suppose to be if he don't get healthy and better. We have player like Chase and Lee who can come and bring offense of the bench but we need a floor general out there with them in the starting line up we don't need him, we have no problem starting we led all the games at half. Now, who finish the games is up to the coach. With Landry here, Scola started all the games and Landry finished most of them. Finishing is what we need to get better at and if Ish or Kyle are the one capable, ecause their defense, so be it. And AB make the team better in his way as well as Ish or Kyle. is up to the coach to figure that out, and the combination of players to play any giving moment. But bringing AB of the bench won't improve the team, because so far we have no problem with the starting of games. Don't fix whats not broken.
It's not about what AB do on Offense, but what he doesn't do on Defense. Yeah, AB's offense is >>>Lowry/Smith, but that's just his own offense, his ability to improve the team's overall offense and chemistry is limited. While he's defense is dragging down the entire team's defense, too often people are forced to cover AB's ass on defense. AB's man always beat him (AB plays defense too far away, and simply refuse to fight through a screen) and we end up having to play help defense so much, which ends with giving up position for rebounds, giving up wide open jumpers, and 2nd chance points. Besides Nash of the Suns, I can't even name a single good and successful playoff team that starts an offensive PG that's horrible on defense. If you gonna get away for playing bad defense, you better be improving your entire team's chemistry/offense like Steve Nash.
MadRox, That is the one area AB really needs to work on, his defense. Sometimes it is pretty danged good, but he constantly loses his man when he peeks at the ball. It is a bad habit when you play guys who move when you turn your head, like Steve Blake in game 1. DD
I really don't think AB's ability to play defense is bad, it's just the way he's playing defense. He consistently plays 6 feet off his man, like he's about to help out on a double. But end up neither double teaming or stay close to his man. All he need to do is stick close to his man, and try to fight through some screens and he'd kick ass. I just don't know why with his speed and quickness, he kept on losing his man sigh....
Go read The_Yoyo's post and you'll understand why comparing Brooks to Parker is irrelevant. and The_YoYo Magnificent post. A+ all the way. Clutch should make that an article for the homepage.
LOL - irrelevent...to people who are desperate for a single style of game and have an agenda against one of our better players for some strange reason. DD
He basically says Brooks isn't Parker because Parker had more team success via having a superstar on his team. An ironic argument. That doesn't automatically allow you to dismiss all Parker comparisons. It also doesn't make it 'irrelevant' by any stretch. No fan writes the canonical definition of who each player can and cannot be compared to. Brooks' strengths are speed and scoring. When you decide that he shouldn't be good at those, it makes it pretty easy to dislike him..
No agenda against Brooks. Still want him on the team. Just think he would be better off the bench for instant offense. Time will only tell though. In the end we are all Rockets fans who want the Rockets to win no matter what. This thread has been one of the best since I've joined CF. Intelligent arguments from two separate opinions.
