I agree that he is better, but not by an insane amount i think AB is a Top 15 pg in this league. The point is I dont want to sacrifice our depth for Chris Paul. He juss doens't spell Championship to me. Having Granger or AI at sf just seems more logical from a team perspective. By the way, I played ball in high school and I didn't always know how to run the point, it took awhile to learn some people get it quicker than others and I think AB is on the right track. It's Athleticism that you can't teach not playmaking skills.
I think so too, but there's a huge difference between Top 15 and Top 3. I'm not trying to undermine AB, but I'd rate Paul an 8.5 and AB a 4-5 (5 being generous) in overall passing, shooting, playmaking, defense, efficiency and how well they make those around them. And when it comes to championship contention, those points are HUGE 'cause you can bet all the other contenders have multiple players rated 7+ on a 10 scale. Agree 100%, but, like anyone else, at the right price, I'd snag him. But something tells me he'll cost 2-3 pretty pennies and I like those pennies. I'd argue it's the other way around, but I never played basketball nor have I coached a team... Well, except from the stands while I have a beer in hand.
i honestly dont like chris pauls game hes one of the biggest floppers in the game and i think he is really overrated.. that being said i would rather keep AB and go for iggy. i think we could get iggy for maybe battier/hill/jeffries exp for iggy/young.. its probably a stretch but anythig is possible.. lets see what morey can do!!!!!!
You pay too much attention to wing players. Just because a player is PF or PG doesn't you can underestimate them.
LOL, I have played and I coached a couple winning seasons when I was in the Navy in Spain. I can tell you that some players have playmaking ability but hey don't know. It's not until the right person says the right thing to them, then they change. If you look back A Lot of point guards didn't become ELITE until later, C Billups and Steve Nash for example. Sometimes it takes time to grow into. But a true athlete cannot be taught, you have it physically or you don't. Playmaking is more mental perception, the way you see the court and the confidence you have in executing the offense. My point is AB has all the great tools to be the next Nash, Ariza however will never be anything more than what he is now, a very good role player. We can replace him with a star and the future will be bright (Even if Yao goes down). If we get Paul and Yao goes down, we're screwed, Paul will leave at the end of his contract.
You guys are using variables to answer a really bad question. And that's if Aaron Brooks is a good playmaker? And the other question is how much better of a playmaker is Paul than Brooks? Really look at the offensive system in place. The read & react offense. That offense and the triangle offense generate the LEAST amount of APG from a PG. I'll use recent examples to help convey my point. In Bibby's early career(with the Grizzlies) he was getting about 8apg with WORSE teammates compared to Sacramento. Now in Sacramento, he got about 5.5apg. Why? Simple answer. The offensive system. In a traditional system, Brooks APG goes from about 5-5.5ish to about 7apg ish. No, nowhere close to what Paul can do, but certainly above average compared to the credit he gets here. And before someone says Lowry gets 4.5apg, realize that Lowry's role is different here than Brooks's is. Lowry cannot shoot. If Paul was here instead of Aaron, expected a "mix" role of how Lowry plays and Aaron plays.
Iguodala's all-around ability cannot be beat. If we do trade for Iguodala, and still keep Battier we have two of the top 5, 6 perimter one on one defenders. Ariza's among them, but Iguodala is a tad bit better but especially more versatile cause he can guard point guards FAR better. Ariza's better on someone like Kobe, for example. He'll also lead our team in APG, be among our highest in RPG, and get 1.5spg/1bpg with his 17/7/7 if he's here.
Here's my two cents: 1. AB is IMHO top 10 pg in the league. After franchise guys like Paul, Williams, Rondo, Nash, Westbrook and Curry, he's top of the next tier already considering he's still young, extremely healthy and has no ego/offcourt problems. With that said, Paul is arguably not only the top pg (depending on where you rank Williams), he's also a top 3 NBA player, while Brooks would probably be in the top 50 or something. That's a huge difference. 2. Paul is special because unlike guys who only score, he's the closest to James and Dwight Howard when it comes to across the board production. A pg's primary role is indeed playmaking and scoring, however with Paul you not only get those two at a high level, you also get some steals, fts (since he flops like a fish, big PLUS), and even some rebounds, as Paul is really good at getting long rebounds. 3. Iggy can produce across-the-board like how Paul does, however they make nearly the same amount of money, and its more economical to have a "superstar" than a "star" for nearly the same price. Being a "superstar", Paul has more advantages than Iggy more than their b-ball skills. Paul can get "superstar" calls by the ref, and that's a HUGE advantage when it comes to winning games. Paul will give the Rockets a face, and with him on board the media won't overlook us as much. Most importantly, Paul gives you that "crunch-time" player at the end of the games, the guy you want handling tha ball when the game is about to end. I know its much better to end the game with a blowout, however every game can't be a blowout, and in the dying seconds when the game is close its important to have a franchise player handling the ball, especially since our coach sucks at in-game adjustments and substitutions. 4. Speaking of Adelman, although he sucks at in-game coaching, he's a master at tweaking his system to fit his players. All this "Paul won't fit the system" is wrong. The system fits around the players, and not the other way around. When we had Yao Ming, we had an offense more similar to what Adelman had at Sac: halfcourt but fluid. When Yao went out, the system became much closer to PHX: more run-and-gun. If we somehow manage to get Paul, expect our system to be Paul-centric. After all, when Webber was at his prime he got the ball the most as well in Sac. 5. Systems don't work when its playoffs. The other team gets 7 games to dissect and tear apart your system, so offensive and defensive systems tend to collapse in the playoffs and most plays get broken. In that kind of environment, we need a superstar player to carry the team and use his special skills to make life easier for the team. Paul is that guy. Iggy and Brooks? A little, but not as much as Paul. Of course, Iggy by himself is gonna be a huge upgrade over Ariza, but if you're asking me if I'd rather have Paul and Ariza or Iggy and Brooks, then the answer is clear.
I generally agree with your two cents except for Adelman sucking at in game coaching and systems don't work when its the playoffs. It amazes me how many people don't get how Adelman coaches in game. You can't just constantly change your plan and lineup, how do expect players to develop and learn when you sub them out when they are getting owned? Furthermore, systems do work in the playoffs. Plays get broken all the time but it's the team's system and philosophy that guide them through the rough patches.
My two cents: We have as good as a chance of landing CP3 as Bosh. Even though the Rockets have arguably the best trade pieces and etc., it will be up to CP3 to decide where he wants to and it looks like he will join another super friend team. Obviously, Morey will still pursue CP3 (what competent Gm wouldn't?), but ultimately I think AI has the most realistic chance of coming to the Roxs. With that said, the Roxs have laid their cards on the table and AI (in my opinion) offers the most realistic chance of us bringing the championship. We would have to follow the Pistons model of winning, but with AI I think we are just as good, if not better than that team.
I think I'm just too high right now, but Iggy should not be AI. I scrolled down and completely forgot what I was reading about within the first couple posts. :grin:
are you kidding me? chris paul is arguably a top 3-5 player in the league. His PER is through the roof and does everything well on the floor. i give 3 things to brooks that he does better than cp3 1) he can run the clock out faster at the end of the game....just sheds those extra second off that help us seal the win 2) longer range 3) a tad easier penetration as his quickness attributes to this as well chris paul does this better than aaron brooks 1) plays much more controlled 2) much better handles 3) much better passer 4) even though cp3 is a tweener as well, he is an elite defender 5) higher basketball iq 6) much better rebounder 7) less turnover prone (in the sense that with paul dominating the ball, to's the ball the same amount per game) 8) so elite he makes ppl like tyson chandler look all-star-ish
Call me crazy but I think we should try to send them some of our expiring contracts with one of our young talents maybe throw in one of our picks.... Battier,Jefferies,and (young talent- one of the following Budinger,Hill,Patterson,or Taylor,) for Paul I would make brooks untouchable letting him fill our Jason Terry role 6th man of the year...I think with colison they already have there starting point so they may not even want brooks...I think there real main goal is to save money i think our expiring contracts would execute that for them
