I actually think Brooks should get the start, particularly next to McGrady, and get more minutes. OTH I don't all this Rafer bashing is warranted. He's not as bad as some make him out to be.
I wouldn't say that's the "main" argument. A lot of people simply state that Brooks' skill set is more suited for the bench separate from anything regarding Rafer as a reserve. I have read some posts making the argument that Rafer would be useless off the bench, but it was the minority. I actually think it's a pretty odd argument that a starting PG isn't good enough to have value as a bench player yet he's good enough to start. I fully understand why people make that argument but think about it. How many good, or even decent PGs, would you argue couldn't be valuable as a reserve? I'm not talking about that player just losing some of his value by coming off the bench, either. People argue that Rafer would be horrible coming off the bench because of his weaknesses. Again, I understand why they make this argument. If that really is the case, though, he shouldn't be a starter either, in my opinion. That's almost like saying, this guy is so bad, he should start.
<br> He should start because (if nothing else) it shows the coach has confidence in you. <br> Aaron Brooks isn't Ron Artest or Jason Terry, or other like them who have proven themselves in this league already, so it makes no difference whether they come off the bench or start. He needs to be given a vote of confidence by his coach and his peers. If that hurts Rafer Alston's feelings, I'm sorry, but the potential for upgrade is too much to ignore
<br> The thing is though, you can't ignore the mindset of Coach A. Its become clearly evident that no matter what, even if hell freezes over, he will put his starters back in the game. Or, at least he will put the PG back in. There is very little chance that Brooks closes out games unless he starts
Rafer's defense is overrated. I just realized that the only thing Rafer could really do is hit one or two clutch shots and "run the offense". When I mean run the offense, I don't mean passing the way Deron does. Rafer doesn't make passes that actually benefit the teammates unlike other PGs. His passes don't really make things easier for his teammates. It's funny since RA always puts Rafer with McGrady, ALWAYS. Though I often see Brooks and McGrady as a much more productive lineup, MUCH more productive. When Rafer and McGrady are on the court together, Rafer isn't running the offense, McGrady is. Rafer rarely creates good shots for his teammates, at least not anymore this season. So far, Rafer's assists often comes from passing to Yao, and letting Yao do the rest. Now whenever McGrady and Rafer is on the court, you have McGrady running the offense, and Rafer missing shots. This is why McGrady and Brooks should be on the same lineup, not McGrady and Rafer. Rafer can't hit open shots, he just can't. McGrady creates shots for his teammates, but Rafer doesn't. The one thing that Rafer just can't do is drive in and pass to an open player. He drives in and chucks the ball up in the air. Perhaps it is McGrady's height advantage that allows him to pass out to an open teammate so well when he drives in, but Rafer has yet to even do what PGs do, draw defense and dish to an open teammate. Rafer has the ability to draw defense, but he has no ability to exploit this, he just chucks the ball up time and time again. Even Brooks is learning to pass to the open man when he draws defense.
What do you think Brooks is going to develop into? This isn't Greg Oden over here. He's not going to turn into Tony Parker if we give him more minutes.
When it comes to Rafer, here's what I'm hearing: Every "pro" argument for Rafer basically runs "his _____ isn't as bad as you say it is". When Rafer supporters, Bill Worrell and Clyde included, have to resort to apologizing for him, what's the point? When we look at Brooks, at least we can say "he's got good speed, good range, he's money on the charity stripe". And then you look at his cons and say "he lacks size, athletic PG's can post him up". But at least he has assets, unlike Rafer's subpar abilities in almost every aspect of the game.
I would agree if our current starting PG wasn't the least efficient scorer in the league. I hear you. Let's see how it plays out. I still think it's time for a full blown reversal of roles. I don't see how it could possibly hurt us.
The main reason people feel Rafer would be garbage or worse off the bench is because they feel like he would become more of a chucker because he feels like he needs to do more. I am starting to disagree with this notion because he still would have Artest coming off the bench with him and he would have Landry. Also I think this would actually make Rafer try to create for his teammates more. Without T-mac is when Rafer actually has done a better job of creating for his teammates. I wouldn't mind if we started Brooks instead of Rafer but hopefully that wouldn't cause a chemistry problem with this team.
Parker was the last pick in the first round of a weak draft. I understand that the Spurs are unusually good at finding overseas talent but it's not like they were the only team scouting and drafting foreign players. The point is that nobody knew Parker's potential back then. Sure, in retrospect, now that we've seen Parker turn into a very good player, it is unlikely that Brooks will reach that level. Like the 2001 Parker though, we don't know Brooks' full potential yet. A lot of people back in 2002 probably said Parker wouldn't be the next Stephon Marbury (he was still considered elite back then).
Of course he may not turn into Tony Parker but giving him more minutes clearly makes this team better. We have Yao,T-mac,and Artest so we don't need him to be Tony Parker we just need him to be Aaron Brooks which is turning out to be a pretty good pg.
so he can't stop a top 3-4 PG consistently and his defense is overrated? so shane battier getting burned by thornton of the clips tell you what? there's a reason stars are stars. they're stars b/c you can't stop them all the damn time. once again, shane can't stop ak47 or harpring. should i say his defense is vastly overrated?
Why couldn't Brooks become Tony Parkerish? Heck he could be better than Tony Parker. It is all up to opportunity, work ethic, confidence, and abilities. Brooks has it all, now all he needs is playing time. DD
At this point it isn't even "what Brooks could become". Its the fact that from what we have seen from Rafer, and what we have seen from Brooks proves that Aaron warrants more PT. This is about improving the Rockets, and the more PT that Brooks gets, the better this team is. Stats back that one up.
So if Rafer can't stop the elite PGs, a point I agree with, then why start him or let him finish games? Brooks is just as good at NOT stopping elite PGs. In fact, I'm more and more convinced that Rafer isn't any better defensively than Brooks. It's not even outside of the realm of possibility anymore that Brooks is better. If you take away Rafer's superior defense, what's left? Are his offensive strengths better than Brooks'?
Brooks there is no more argument, just a couple of guys afraid to admit they are wrong. It is over, Brooks should be the starter and finisher, the team will be better off once Adelman finally figures that out. If I were Morey, I would be down in his office in the morning saying.."It is time to start Brooks"......don't let the season slip away catering to a 32 year old sub 40% shooting PG's fragile ego. DD
