Lowry is really good against bad teams. That's all we've really seen so far. When we're up against a good defense, I would take AB over Lowry any day. Lowry simply isn't as good in the half court offense. AB's passing is hated on but his assist numbers have been improving steadily.
Brooks can score bottom line. Hes a pure scorer. But with that you have to take him dribbling for 11 seconds and running around in a circle only to jack up some crazy shot.
It was gonna get created when there was a game showing an example of how Brooks is effective off the bench leading to a win. As last game did. Its not necessary, but I knew the thread would get made
Well I guess one solution is to just play Brooks, Lowry, and Martin at the same time with Hill and Scola. Yeah it might be the worst defensive backcourt ever, but we're not going to win many games with our defense anyway. Until Lowry can make 200 3's at 39% for a season, I'm staying on the Brooks bandwagon.
I am still a firm believer that Brooks should start and Lowry should come off the bench because of the personnel in both units (Again, it has nothing to do with Lowry's capability as a starter). Larsv8 has the right idea here. Last year our bench was so lethal because Lowry pushed the ball and made the bench an uptempo unit. Budinger benefited from this and received lots of wide open fast break 3's (Granted Budinger is not playing well this year at all, and that has nothing to do with the absence of Lowry). Our bench is filled with uptempo players...Jordan Hill, Chase, Terrence Williams, Courtney lee. They all are athletic and the two of the three wingmen are knockdown 3-point shooters. With Lowry the second unit is a potential defensive juggernaut, and defense leads to fast break opportunities. Lowry would make this unit run much more smoothly than Brooks, and relegating Brooks to the Jason Terry chucker role is not the solution to improving our bench. If anything it would make them less effective because you would turn the bench into a one-man chucking job. Many make the argument that the 4th quarter last night shows that Brooks is an effective off-the-bench player....Not so much. Brooks played with the starters in that 4th quarter (only difference was Lowry was out there instead of Scola). For all the hell you guys give Aaron about his unwillingness to pass, he made two critical passes that led to wide open threes (one to shane of the PnR, another to a wide open Martin). He played off-the-ball for the most part (and this was not because Lowry was in, this is the offense we run) and was poison for the wizard because of his quickness and shooting ability. And to boot, he played great defense on John Wall and Kirk Heinrich (who was tearing Lowry and Kevin martin apart the whole game). It is no coincidence we made a run with Brooks in the game, and everybody in the starting unit benefited. With this team arranged as is, with the starters having half-court players (Chuck, Scola, Battier, Martin) that run a Princeton offense, you start the PG who can work off the ball well (which Aaron does very well), can shoot the rock (which Aaron does very well), can bail you out at the end of a broken down play (which Aaron can do and Kyle can't), and can run the OCCASIONAL PnR when the first look gets nothing (Which Aaron can do well, but not as good as Kyle). The first unit is simply the better fit for Aaron skills.
Perhaps I'm being too picky, but the comment wasn't that Brooks shoudn't start, but that Brooks should realize his role...which doesn't make any sense to me. Is OP suggesting that Brooks go to Adleman and ask to remain on the bench? It's not up to Brooks to decide, obviously. As well, it'd be stupid for Brooks to settle for the bench role. The man is in his contract year, so it would be career suicide for him to voluntarily go to the bench. If I were him and his agent, I would again go to the press and make a little noise if I don't get the starting role within the next 2 weeks or so. I'm sure he'll continue to play in whatever capacity RA wants him too, but he cannot just accept the demotion unless his play CLEARLY is below Lowry. As for fans caring about which PG starts, I don't see why fans are so passionate about it. We have yet to see Brooks and Lowry both fully healthy yet this season. I suspect once we do, Adleman will go with Brooks starting and then make adjustments from there if need be. I just don't think RA wants his players to lose thier job due to injury. He won't play injured players if it hurts the overall team, but I don't think he demotes so quickly.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NXo9Jf_ZXPk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NXo9Jf_ZXPk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Exactly. Thread title is a bit misleading. If taken at face value, it's a real indictment of Adelman in that a player would be able to choose what he's going to do even if hurts the team. Players don't just do what they want to do willy nilly without repercussion. Seems to me Adelman would have Brooks doing whatever he thinks is best to help this team win games. And if Brooks strays from that he would have to deal with the consequences.
I'm indifferent, just as long as we keep up the win streak going. They are GREAT complimentary pieces to each other, especially playing the floor at the same time. We need to keep them together for as long as we can.
