Yeah, those guys are all starters because they are better than Lowry, who BTW could not beat out Mike Conley on Memphis..... Nope, they can move in and out of the edges of the lane to avoid this.... Nope, but having 4 3pt shooters would. DD
Actually, Brooks had a 16.0 PER and Lowry had a 15.5 PER. And Lowry plays much better D and has a higher assist%. But NO, I would not start Lowry over Brooks. Brooks is better. But if it takes trading Brooks to get Bosh, then we do it and find another PG through trade or free agency.
Look, I am not saying Brooks is the best....I am saying you getting Bosh at the expense of the PG position is treading water. So, if you trade Brooks you danged well better have a better PG than Lowry to replace him with.... DD
based on what? Based on the fact that it makes you look silly? Or do you have a spreadsheet I can look at? Let me guess. That's odd, because when you say things like: it's very hard to not come to that conclusion. So anyway, teams are going to pack both the low post and the high post, and then kyle lowry will have to shoot 26 foot jumpers? Are they going to be allowed to have 6 defenders at once in order to simultaneously double everybody?
The Rockets get significantly better at PF with Bosh. At PG, shooting is down, but the Martin acquisition from last year helps make up for that. And Lowry is a better defender, also a plus when pairing along with Martin. What I'd be more worried about is durability. Lowry's and Martin's style of play both make them susceptible to injury, while Brooks has been extremely durable.
You think we need 4 three point shooters on the floor to keep the paint unpacked? How have any teams survived?
Bosh is a borderline superstar. We get MUCH better by adding Bosh. Yes, we do get worse by losing Brooks, but not by comparatively the same amount. Bosh is a max player, Brooks is not. If it comes down to Brooks plus picks for Bosh, I guarantee Morey will pull the trigger. Then we trade for a PG who can shoot.
I don't know how you can 15.5 A LOT lower than 16.0. And Per is offensive oreinted as everybody know. If there is a defensive PER rating, Lowry would be way higher. Everybody can see Brooks as a better scorer than Lowry, but Lowry more than enough make up for that with his defense and overall floor game.
A lot lower? Useless scrub Lowry, among PG's, is 26th or 27th, and Brooks the All-star franchise alpha dog, top 8 PG is 24th. Please tell me what kind of curve you are grading on - thx in advance.
if we are getting Bosh, frankly we probably have to give up Brooks. just like other people said, the only advantage Brooks can offer is his score, but with Yao, Bosh and Martin, we need Lowry more than Brooks.
It is /sarcasm Genius. Sorry, all you Bosh lovers........you would trade Brooks for him, I would not. I guess we shall see what happens......and if Bosh even thinks of coming here what Morey would give up to get him. I would not..... DD
1. run ahead of the packing. 2. roam around the pack, find any leaking through. 3. run into the pack and flop. 4. get into the paint to grab rebounds. 5. give up the ball to teammates and watch. 6. taken out of the game, back to bench.
I love this board. "We have a chance to get an All-Star power forward?!? Sign me up!" "Okay but you will have to part with Aaron Brooks--" "Now waitagoshdarnminutehere!"
A better scorer isn't necessarily a better offensive player. According to basketball-reference.com, Lowry is rated better than Brooks both offensively and defensively in the 2009-10 season. Brooks had better scoring stats simply because he was given the green light to shoot at will and played more minutes, but that contributed to much less team success (win-shares) on a per-minute basis when compared to Lowry.
