I think that's a more valid argument. But the bigger reason, like you said, is he's still working himself back into game shape.
I think you are misunderstanding me. Lee and Budinger are both here on this team because they have the ability, skills, quickness to cut off screens and get a shot off. If there is a timeout play or a specific play run to get Lee or Budinger an open mid range shot, then yes, they will be able to execute by curling off. In the the free motion system where it isnt a set play, where the cutter is not clearly identified and the screener is not clearly identified, they struggle to get open. Numerous times last night, Miller is holding the ball in the high post while Bud and Lee are running circles around the court trying to get open. It never materializes then either Miller tries drive or he dumps it off to Brooks to bail them out.
Alright, I just I don't agree with that. Martin, Lee, and Budinger are all about the same in terms of making reads and getting open in the offense. Its Battier who does a poor job of it, relatively speaking.
Ah... So now we have from the YOF and TOF to the AOB and KOB... Both of these guys have their strength and weakness and they have both shown that they can start and come off the bench... So to say i'm naive because I don't agree on which one starts is just ludacris on your part.... There have been games where both guys look good and both look horrible... So like I said earlier you go with the hot hand until it goes cold. T_Man
Funny. I thought this same thing for the last 7 years starting when Brooks was a freshman at Oregon. Way to beat a dead horse.
Battier is good at facillitating the cut, by blocking off other guys allowing the cutter to get open.
This reminds me of that season when we won 22 in a row. Before the streak, Mcgrady was injured for a few games and the team started to play well and people started to wonder if Mcgrady was too selfish and if the team is better of without him. Same thing is happening to Brooks. He pisses me off sometimes because of his jacking up shots and disrupting the offensive flow. Theres a reason why Battier is doing so much better in the offensive end playing with Lowry. There is no way he would be playing this well playing with Brooks. I wouldn't mind him doing that in a Eddie House role, but like the announcers keeps on saying, the coach is too loyal to his players.
It is not an issue of who agrees with who. It is called opening your eyes and watching the game. It is not hard to see that Lowry sets players up better, especially on the fast break. It is also not hard to see that the offensive flow is smoother and faster. Also, if it doesn't matter who starts, why do teams put such emphasis on making a strong starting lineup? It is common sense and simple logic that your starting lineup sets the tone for the game. If you have a lineup as porous as ours when we started Brooks, Martin, and Scola, you set the tone for the other team that it will be a buffet for penetrating guards.
It has been already proven that Kevin Martin plays better alongside Lowry. I guarantee that Martin couldn't have put up 32 and 28 in the first half of games with AB starting. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how Lowry gets others involved. His crip passing to Martin and Scola has been a beautiful thing to watch.
I don't like the Jason Terry Comparisons too much. Jason Terry is an excellent catch and shoot guy and that's his main role in Dallas while AB does most of his damage in 1-0n-1 situations, for now AB needs to dominate the ball to do his job, with him off the bench we don't get a Jason Terry kind of player. For me the jury is still out regarding who starts. If AB keeps making good plays happen like he did in the 4th quarter, then I would prefer for him to start, plus I like the Martin-Brooks tandem, very dynamic, they had great chemistry last year. My main preoccupation is how much our second unit has sucked, and I am almost sure that Lowry is the perfect antidote; the question is if a healthy AB is as good a cure.
If that's how ya'll truly feel with Brooks then you might as well say you want him traded. Other teams already recognize his superb shooting ability and they strictly guard him. What makes Brooks better than Lowry is he has the capabilities to be a "floor general" as well as drive in/kick out, burn his defender with speed, or nail the 3s at will. What YOU should realize sir, is that when Brooks is on the field, he leaves the team guessing on what he is going to do and it leaves their defense playing Russian Roulette.
I wish I could edit...but when I say "What makes Brooks better than Lowry" it sounds as if I like one or prefer one over the other. They are both great. I love them both on the field. Lowry comes out hard and always impresses me when he plays out his mind like he has been doing. However when you have these two point guards switching, it leaves our team UNPREDICTABLE and gives us an advantage when playing this chess game we call basketball
<a href="http://www.threadbombing.com/details.php?image_id=4283"><img src= "http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/3/calm-down.jpg" border="0" alt="Randomizer" /> </a>
I totally agree with you. I don't understand why all the Brooks hate. Lowry has his positives, but his one main negative keeps him from being a starter on most teams is his outside shooting. Yes his shooting has been good as of late, but it’s not consistent. It’s amazing that people focus on Brook’s negatives and don’t give Brook’s credit for things like his playmaking ability while creating better spacing on the court for others, giving his teammates better opportunities to score the ball. While, Lowry's man continually sags off of him because of his inability to consistently hit jumpers. Brooks also makes his man expel more energy by having to guard him, which helps down the stretch. Yes, Brook’s doesn't pass as well as Lowry but he is a good passer. And lest we forget, it was Brooks who carried us during past playoff runs. But it all comes down to who matches up better down the stretch. I just wish people give brooks the credit he deserves. All and all I am glad to have both though; Brooks and Lowry complement each other’s weakness. Maybe we should be glad that we are having a discussion about who should start; it translates to the team having good point guards.
is it shooting? bc he has shown drastic improvement. he's freakin 24 it comes down to upside.. lowry's ceiling is higher than brooks'
Again both players have their strengths and weakness..... Both players have done good starting.. So what you are stating is very mute in the case of the Rockets... Now if you are talking about Dallas, Phoenix or some other team where you can clearly see the difference between the starter and the back-up ; I would understand your theory... But both of these guys have done well starting.. Now their are some guys who cannot come off the bench and their are some guys who can't start.. ALA Vinny "The Microwave" Johnson.. He was more effective coming off the bench. But again the Rockets are blessed too have interchangeable parts... T_Man
another brooks vs lowry thread, fans should be happy that there is actually an argument between who should start. thats not the case for 90% of the other teams. as far as this debate goes why not wait until the rockets start playing legitimate playoff teams, and then decide who is more capable.
