I don't know which game you watched, but Lowry starting for us last night wasn't bad. He wasn't great, but the team didn't do that bad when we were playing our starters with Lowry. It was actually RA's idiocy in playing players at the right time and Rose going off (as superstars can) that lost this game for us. You realize we lost to a good team without Yao, AB, and Bud by only 3 points right? Yea, we did REALLY bad.
AB on the bench means he comes off it, meaning he has an easier time scoring since he is going up against scrubs. Is that really so hard to understand?
Just take solace in the fact that DaDakota has downgraded Brooks from "franchise level player" to "all-star caliber" and now "close to all-star level".
Not at all, the point is that Lowry is not good enough to hold the fort as a starter. And when Yao comes back, they will sag off of him and force him to shoot and give Yao and Luis NO ROOM TO OPERATE.... You have to surround them with competent shooters. Is that really so hard to understand? BTW - all you folks would have KILLED Brooks defense if he was as bad as Lowry was last night. All we hear now from you is excuses......typical.... Lowry is the most overated Rocket on this team. Backup QB syndrom for the energy guy.... DD
I guess you missed the part where Yao is NOT playing and will ONLY be playing half the time. I actually want to dump Yao off not only the starting lineup but off the team as well. I am sick of him and his glass foot, being nothing but a burden on the team. Luis is money from the elbow with his jumper and therefore creates his own spacing, so your argument is moot. Lowry has held the fort, but he can't do it for that many minutes. Like I said, it is not as much as who starts for AB, but how many minutes he gets. I have watched where an AB team leads us (lottery) and it is time for a change.
I don't have a crush for Lowry, idiot. I just feel AB is better served coming off the bench. Given the fact that I would then have to choose between Lowry and Ish, well that is kind of a no brainer don't you think? Lowry is proven while Ish is still a rookie. I still want AB to have more minutes, just in a different role.
Allen Iverson Jason Terry Vinnie Johnson Lou Williams Jose Calderon Calvin Murphy Michael Adams Damon Stoudamire Spud Webb Earl Boykins Mugsy Bogues Nate Robinson Dana Barros Brevin Knight Steve Blake Ben Gordon Tyronn Lue All good NBA players. All role players except for Iverson, who was a very inefficient first option for a Sixers team that made it to the Finals once, when Iverson was surrounded by 4 defenders, who basically stood around and cleaned up after him offensively and did all the heavy lifting defensively. Brooks fits on this list somewheres. Most all of these guys, if given Brooks' minutes in their prime, on this current Rox team would put up similar scoring numbers. Some of them would not shoot as well from distance, some of them would. But most all of them save for possibly Blake and Brevin Knight would get 20 ppg given Brooks minutes, and the basketball in their hands as often as Brooks had it. But the vast majority of these guys were not starting material, they were/are role players off the bench. Good in their capacity. But all fatally flawed and not capable of being a starter in the NBA. Morey and Adelman have made Brooks look really good. He is very talented. He is a great shooter with tremendous quickness. He is a great role player for a championship contender or possibly a solid starter for a team like the Clippers who are looking to sell a few tickets but are not serious about really winning anything. I realize Lowry is flawed. He can't shoot from outside. That's his main flaw. He is not a top 10 point guard in the NBA. But on this team, as currently constructed, we need him and his skillset more than we need Brooks. If we were running Battier and Artest on the wings, or Ariza and Battier, or some other combo of high defense low offense wings, then Brooks would be much more needed than Lowry. But we're not. We are running Martin and an older less mobile Battier at the wings. We have to have Lowry's defensive tenacity out there to keep it close. Here's what happens if Brooks plays last night. Rose still goes off. But Brooks is taking away touches from Scola. Chicago would have loved that. They would have beat us by 30. Rose would have only scored about 24, because he would have been out of the game for the last 8 minutes of the 4th quarter. And Brooks would have gotten his 24. And a lot of posters on this board would be talking about how Brooks played him even. And Scola would have gotten about 16 and you would be talking about trading Scola because his defense was so bad. Brooks needs to be traded for a significant upgrade at the SF spot and Brooks and multiple players including Jeffries and Hill need to be moved for a significant 2-way player at the SF spot and a legit defensive paint presence to play alongside Scola/Miller and possibly Yao once he gets it together. Do we still need to upgrade the PG position? YES! I am all for bringing in Billups or Nash or Rubio or Paul if they become available. And those are the points that are most likely to become available.....in that order. And then Lowry can go back to being the best point guard in the NBA off the bench.
Just stop comparing him to others, there are a myriad of players we could compare him to as well. Tony Parker for example, but you guys have slammed me for that comparison, so no other comparison is relevent either, because we don't have those guys rosters on the Rockets. Look, I agree about Yao....I just don't think Lowry is a quality NBA starter, period. He is average as a passer, he is pretty good on D, he is horrible as a shooter, he is very right hand dominant, and he is easy to scheme against because of his shortcomings. If we had a better option than AB, great, but we don't. BTW - instead of bashing Brooks you should realize that he is not taking shots away from anyone.....when he played, Kmart and Scola got the most shots with Brooks himself as the third option. So, please, pay attention, he is.... DD
Ok, this discussion is tired. We're better for now with both AB /Kyle. For the umpteenth time, Lowry played well with the first group last night. He wasn't the reason we lost.
First, I don't get why you keep comparing Parker to AB when the two are COMPLETELY different. Parker is a decent shooter who looks to penetrate and get to the rim first. Parker draws way more fouls than AB. AB on the other hand is a shooter who is deathly scared of contact, as seen by his horribly low FT attempts. Second, Lowry can easily hold the fort when he is not being told to do that the entire game. Being a starter =/= starter minutes. I still want AB to get those minutes, just off the bench against the secondary units where his lack of D will not hurt us as much. This way AB will still get his minutes and his points, just in a way that will help the team MUCH more.
I agree, they are only alike in that they are poor defenders but good offensive players with different styles. No, Lowry can't, he has never been good enough to start, and so far, he still isn't. He is a full motor 20mpg bench player, period. If he could shoot a decent percentage you would be right, but he can't. DD
QFT. I know you're not supposed to lose your starting job due to injury but I wouldn't be surprised if AB comes off the bench when he's healthy.
Lowry is easy to scheme against when you have a one-dimensional poor shooter at the SF position who can no longer drive and finish, and when you have one dimensional shooter at the center position who cannot post. His defender can drop off and help on the center and the ball is funneled to the weakest link, the SF, who is a one-dimensional mediocre shooter. Hence, why Shane got such wide open looks last night.
I've never seen someone get so hung up on one word before.. "starter".. Exactly what does that word mean to you? Does it mean that Brooks will never play? Does it mean that Brooks wouldn't be in the game down the stretch? I'm starting to think it does, and it's absurd: Brooks would still be playing a big role on the team as a scorer off the bench. He would still be in our lineup going down the stretch if we need the scoring punch -- JUST like Jason Terry has done for the Mavs. JUST like Ginobli has done for the Spurs. Just because he's not in the starting lineup doesn't mean that he won't have just as big of a role for this team. Tell your client to relax and enjoy getting buckets as a 6th man!
The truth is the truth, everyone can see with their own two eyes......some, just choose to ignore it, or don't understand the game very well. I mean the guy played 43 minutes last night.....scored 7 points, dished out 7 dimes had 4 turnovers, and got torched on defense. yeah, that was great. NOT ! DD
Did you completely misread what I wrote. I wrote that being a starter does not mean playing starter minutes. Being a starter just means you start the game. I still want BROOKS to get starter minutes, just off the bench against scrubs who can't really hurt us too bad.
Didn't you say to play Lee at SF? ROFLMAO !!!! AB has to start with Yao here, he has to...Yao needs the space to operate.... If Yao goes (and I am leaning that way) I would be happy to reconsider the roster and how it is configured. However, Lowry, is not the answer, he is a vastly overpaid backup PG. Look, I understand what you are saying, I do not agree with you. DD
If you have to result to personal attacks, its pretty much a given you have a weak argument. You say you want Brooks to play more minutes and to close out games b/c you think he is better suited to score against weaker bench players. For starters, there isnt a desiginated time when all bench players come in so that premise pretty much goes out the window. This isn't five in and five out, and during the playoffs when everything matters, the best players are always on the floor. Furthermore, Brooks has proven he can score against almost anyone, so trying to list that as a positive, as if he will score more off the bench, is fairly dumb. Second of all, Lowry is most effective when he is running the ball and plays with guys who run with him like Lee, Bud, etc. IE all the bench guys. Brooks is better in a half court set because 1.) he can space the floor and get open threes and 2.) if a play breaks down he can create in isolation. Neither of those things Lowry can do, hence our fourth quarter meltdown last night when the game changed into a half court set. You can also reference the Portland and Lakers series when Brooks was blowing it up and Lowry was terrible. That, in itself, should clue you in as to why things are the way they are. Swapping them completely destroys the synergy and balance of both lineups and it is clear to anyone who actually watches what happens in the games. If you really want balance, move the no D, all O Scola into the bench lineup and insert Hill or Hayes in his place. That would balance the lineups much more than what you are suggesting.
