I just think the best players should start and play the most minutes. The best lineup the rox can have on the court is Brooks,Artest,Tracy,Landry and Yao. Brooks and Landry can make up for the atheleticism in the lineup. They are the 2 best finishers around the rim also. Rafer,Shane,and Scola are all 20 min bench guys to me. Rafer couldnt start on any other team in the league and the notion of him running the offense is a joke. The rox built this thing thinking Yao and Tracy could be Shaq and Kobe. neither can compare to those in their prime. So the rox need to get guys that can just straight hoop. Rafer isnt the kind of guy to consistently make teams pay. Rafer,Scola, and Battier have probably the easiest jobs in basketball, yet all 3 struggle to make good of their chances. The rox got bogged down forcing it to yao when clearly he was in butterfly mode. Thats when they should have high pick and roll with brooks and cut him loose. they had no one who could stay in front of him. Rafer on the other hand is just terrible.
Great post, leebigez. That's an excellent point. We could get by with Rafer as a bottom tier starting PG if McGrady and Yao were what everybody (including GMs and coaches) wanted to believe they were. If those guys were as dominant as they are hyped up to be, it may work. You should still start your best PG even if that was the case though. Yao and T-Mac are good players when healthy but they aren't the next coming of Shaq and Kobe when they were winning championships. Maybe if McGrady was playing like he was in 2002, we could try to support the "start Rafer around the best of the best" theory but that isn't the case. It's not even close. We need to compensate for this fact by having bailout options around Tracy and Yao. They simply aren't as dominant as they need to be for us to get by with 40% of our starting lineup being near league worst offensive players at their positions (Rafer and Battier). Instead of relying on two players to dominate our offense, we need more of a balance of options since those two key cogs can't always bear that weight. Brooks and Artest would certainly fit the bill. Landry should start, too, in my opinion but I know most people will hate that idea. They love having the most unathletic duo in the league as our starting frontcourt. Instead of letting Tracy play statue on the perimeter when he isn't healthy (or motivated) or when Yao is not effective for some reason, we can go to our other options.
The case for Alston to start is that he is the weaker offensive player. You start Brooks and he won't get as many plays per minute as he does when two of Yao/Tmac/Artest are on the bench. But on top of being the weaker offensive player, he's the better leader and gets us into our offense faster because he isn't afraid to boss the team around. Brooks is just too young at this point to be able to order guys like Tmac, Yao and Artest around. I don't understand what the case for Brooks getting more run with Tmac and Yao is. I've heard a lot of "well, if Brooks plays with stars, his stats get better". Might be true, but Alston when he's playing with guys like Hayes, Barry and Landry... thats a horrible line up. So you lose as much as you gain. I can understand the idea of "we should play Brooks 25-30 minutes a game", but bring him off the bench. He's as good a starter as he is coming off the bench, but Rafer isn't.
Shane has been crap so far this season, so offense. It's the McGrady hate that shield's Shane's bad performance. The game against Cleveland, McGrady gave Battier at least 5 wide open 3 pointers, but he made just one. Obviously, the blame goes to McGrady. However, Brooks has already played the Star players that Rafer also played. Brooks has done a better job and it's a fact. Battier though, despite letting players score, does not have a substitute that could prevent them from scoring as well. Yes, we have Ron Artest, but Ron Artest guards different players, and as we've before even when Artest guards the same player Battier guards, he will still have trouble doing it. Basically, this game finally reveals Rafer. Rafer doesn't actually "run the offense", he is always playing with McGrady, ALWAYS. McGrady runs the offense, and McGrady is the one making open shots for the teammates. Basically, Rafer is overrated because he is playing with McGrady. Whatever productivity McGrady makes, Rafer leeches from it because he plays with McGrady. This game against Jazz told me everything. When it came crunch time, Rafer could only defer to Yao. He played the role as a PG so bad that I finally had enough of him. Rafer isn't injured, he is perfectly normal, he has no excuses. He didn't make ONE pass that benefited any of our teammates, not ONE when it really mattered. It took these OTs and close games to really expose Rafer. If you have McGrady and Yao, McGrady will drive in and dish to an open man. When I think back, all Rafer does in close games is walk the ball pass half court and give it to McGrady. Now that McGrady is absent from this game, Rafer could not defer to him. So what did he do? He gave it to Yao everytime, he didn't even choose to drive in, or draw defense, or anything. He just gave it to Yao. Yes McGrady has been pathetic the past 2 games, and he really is no better than Rafer, but McGrady would at least make his teammates' job easier by driving in and passing out. Rafer had none of it, absolutely nothing. So isn't it better if McGrady played with Brooks instead?
This shows how mediocre our starting PG position is...it was awful to watch how Alston was toyed back 2 back by Paul and Williams...
<br> First off, why wouldn't Brooks be able to get as many shots as he does now? He only averages about 7 shots a game. Compare that to the 13+ that Rafer chucks up a game. Of course Brooks will get his shots. <br> Secondly, in reference to the above statement, where are you getting this info from? Rafer does nothing to "boss around" anyone. He gives the ball to Yao/McGrady/Artest and lets the do their thing. The man can't even break down the opposing team's defense, let alone "boss around" our players. <br> Now, just as any other pro Rafer argument, you bring up the bench. Oh Rafer can't do well with the bench so he has to start. NEWSFLASH! This isn't the Rafer Alstons, it is the Houston Rockets. Who cares if he doesn't do well? Play Brooks more then. When Rafer was out, Aaron averaged about 35 mpg. I don't see that is excessive, considering that in previous years Rafer averaged 40 mpg. <br> Finally, Brooks needs to be the starter, because he is the best option. I think many people undervalue the importance of getting off to a good start. It is just as critical as closing a game.
Since when were Kirilenko and Harpring considered offensive juggernauts? Yes, if a healthy Battier can't stop those two, you should say he's overrated defensively. I'll cut Battier some slack on that end because he's still getting his legs under him but he's always been a scrub, offensively. He can't create his own shot if his life depended on it.
But thats not usually the case that the best player starts. Ginobli for the most part comes off the bench. AK47, when his team is healthy, usually comes off the bench (when he could play starting SF easy, he's done it before). Odom comes off the bench. James Posey has yet to start a game, but he averages more points than the two guys that have started ahead of him, Butler and Peterson. Artest is an obvious one. Jason Terry is averaging 21 points off the bench. He's also averaging 35 minutes off the bench. JR Smith is better than Jones and comes off the bench, has been for 2 years. It happens all the time. And in most of the cases, the guy coming off the bench is the explosive offensive energy and the guy starting is the consistent vet... or the leader... or the role-player thats just in there to take open 3s. Its about who ends the game, not who starts.
Brooks can't do that though. To be fair, Alston only does that about 95% of the time. The other 5% he does his patented "fake penetration" before dribbling it back out and handing it off to McGrady 30 feet from the basket. I just can't see Brooks ever developing those tremendous skills.
Its because Rafer plays 30 minutes and Brooks 20. And I don't think the shot discrepency is that huge. AB has taken 252 shots in 671 minutes, Alston 261 shots in 803 minutes. Brooks is taking more shots per minute than Alston is. He just needs more minutes is all. "Boss around" is in reference to those little hand signals that Rafer throws up when we are on offense. Those are called plays. Sometimes Adelman calls them out, sometimes not. There is a reason Adelman likes to play Brooks and Barry at the same time, because then Barry becomes the vet leader calling plays and ordering people around. The argument is you start Rafer, but give Brooks more minutes. Terry averages 35 minutes per game off the bench. You can give Brooks starters minutes but without the drawback of basically taking Rafer out of his game. (on top of the other reasons to give brooks more minutes but start rafer that I've mentioned). I've already shown tons of examples of the better player coming off the bench. There is another one of those examples on this very team (Artest). Its a bad argument.
Rafer is not confident with his playmaker abilities, but I assure you he is very confident with his scoring abilities. There is a huge difference between Rafer and other not so special PGs. Rafer is not confident with being a playmaker, but he is damn confident to shoot the ball as much as he wants. I look at players like Rondo, Fisher, and other average PGs. They have confidence in their playmaker abilities. Yes, a lot of them are chuckers as well, but they have confidence in both, and when the game is close a confident passing PG is what every team wants and needs. Rafer's mindset really confuses me. It appears that he doesn't actually want to play PG, he has a mindset of a SG. Perhaps if McGrady and Rafer's mindset switched around, our team may be much more sucessful. Although playing Brooks with McGrady is just as good for me.
Ok... so you can see that that Brooks is as good a guy to set up the offense as Alston. You can see he's as good a defender (which I'm agreeing with but they both have their strengths defensively). You can see that Brooks is the better scorer (which I agree with). Why can't Adelman see it? Answer: you are obviously missing something when a potential HOF coach disagrees with you. And I would like to hear someone explain to me why Terry isn't starting either then. Again, another vet coach in Carlisle. Terry is the 2nd leading scorer and he's off the bench. I mean... he averages 35 minutes a game, but for some reason he should start because he's the better player right? The better player automatically has to be the starter... thats the rules! Adelman knows what he's doing.
How many teams have their best PG coming off the bench? PG is unique in that a PG handles the ball more than any other player on the team and is responsible for breaking down defenses and making things easier for his teammates. Most of those guys you listed are SGs and SFs. Terry is playing behind Kidd. Edit: Terry is more of a SG now anyway so my original question stands.
<br> I think we agree on the first part. Plus the fact that Brooks has way better percentages than Rafer. But, no use in beating that story to death (again). <br> Oh, so that's what those are called, thanks for letting me know!! Fact of the matter is, those "plays" that Rafer calls can be done by any guard in the league. In fact, Luther head can "call" those plays, because you have to take notice of what happens after he calls them. He doesn't actually set up anything, he just calls the play, then proceeds to hand the ball of to McGrady. I don't know how anyone could think that Brooks can't do the same. Not to mention that Brooks did a fine job of doing that by himself when Barry and Alston were injured. But that must have never happened or something, because people love ignoring it. <br> Look, what most of you aren't getting is that Brooks is not those guys. Look at what they all have in common. Jason Terry, Ron Artest, Jerry Stackhouse, Lamar Odom, Manu Ginobli... They are all veterans who have proven themselves to be excellent players, and have the confidence to be able to play off the bench with no drawbacks. The only guy that you could possibly compare the scenario that you want is to Ben Gordon, because he established himself as being the best option for his team, while coming off the bench. That is a rare case though, and does not happen very often. Brooks needs to start, because his best qualities are brought out by playing next to McGrady. You earlier mentioned him doing well playing alongside Barry. Well, you basically have to multiply that by 10, because of the player that McGrady is..
I think he does see it but like Hayes starting over Scola last season, he's waiting for the right time to make the change. He knows Brooks would be a better option RIGHT NOW just like he knew Scola would be a better option than Hayes from day one last season. I don't know if it will be a week or a month or next season, but Adelman will make the change eventually. He's willing to let the inferior PG start this season just like he was willing to let an inferior PF start last season. If McGrady continues to gimp around the court or miss games, I am guessing this change will come very soon.
<br> I hope it doesn't take this team going under .500 or losing to the sixers for him to realize it...
Man, I hope you are right...and that he is just looking for the right time. Last year, Yao went out and Scola started at center, then Yao was back and Scola kept starting. Now that Tmac is out, maybe he can start AB, and then bench Rafer when TMac is back. PLEASE GOD...PLEASE !! DD
I think he is waiting for the right time. Just like in Sac, he moved Peja ahead of corliss and traded williams for bibby. Rafer is not, is not a nba quality starter. There are too many he cants for him to start on a team thats suppose to be a contender. I have many issues with the construction of this team really and many will say i just like to whine and b****, but i'm a realist. If our goal is to win the ring, this team as its constructed cant do it unless they duck utah and la and tracy is 95% healthy.Otherwise, they have too many guys that need too much help scoring from other players. What we saw tonight, is what teams will do to the rox. Players sink into Yao's lap and get physical because they dont fear rafer,shane or scola when they're out there. The best shooter is Barry, but he cant guard anyone. Brooks gives the rox a legit option when teams want to overplay on defense. I said it last year and i've created threads of why brooks should start, but there are still legions that believe in this whole notion of intangibles when tangibles are what wins games also. The lakers got rid of smush for a reason. Smuch and Rafer are on the same level. The rox are just too stubborn to see it right now.
Interesting point that at least makes some sense. But Scola started out slow last season and wasn't ready to be the starter from day one. He was too foul prone and turned the ball over a lot. Once he adjusted to the NBA and started consistently producing, it became obvious, though one could argue Adelman waited longer than he should have. I'm not even wanting AB to start; just make sure he closes out tight games when he's obviously a option than Rafer.
If Yao was hitting his shots, no OT and you wouldn't be whinning yet again about Rafer. Geez. Get over it. To prove my point, Artest cleans up ...as a goto guy should. AB isn't our savior ...but Artest might be.
