One important thing some people fail to note is that the team was playing better with Lowry than it was with Brooks running the point in BOTH 09/10 and 10/11. Even while Brooks was shooting well and Kyle Lowry still did not have a J back in 09/10, the Rockets were doing significantly better with Lowry running the point because (1) he pushed the ball on the break, (2) he got offensive rebounds, and (3) he drew fouls, and (4) he played better D and an overall more intelligent game. Kyle Lowry didn't just all of a sudden elevate his game-- he elevated his shooting ability, but he was already quite effective, and more effective than Brooks was in his "best season," without the long-range shot.
All true, with the caveat being that generally Lowry was playing against backups, and rarely late in the 4th quarter where things get tight. But to say he didn't elevate his game all of the sudden is silly, he most certainly did, his shooting was one of the biggest keys to him proving himself as a starting caliber PG, that was the one area that was always holding him back. DD
Oh, forgot, when Kyle was playing late in games, it was generally WITH AB, those two together where pretty danged effective in 9-10. I understand people want to stand on the corner and pound their chest, pinching their own nipples and yell out...I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG..... It's cool, whatever is good for the Rockets. Let's just hope that Kyle continues to get even better, because he is already pretty danged good. DD
Why is everybody so sure that AB was playing above his skill level 2 years ago and just as certain that Lowry was playing within himself last year? I just hope Lowry's shot doesn't return to reality and then we hear from these same dudes hating on Lowry with the same venom as they have for Brooks.
The difference between AB and Lowry is that you take away AB's shot and that is the end of it. He has literally nothing more to give to the team. Lowry, on the other hand, can still defend pretty well, pass really well, push the tempo, and constantly look to penetrate. There is a good reason why a lot of us was pushing for Lowry to replace AB even before his shot was falling and it was the "cool thing to do." Those fans and I who were not blinded by AB's speed and shot and saw him for what he truly was, the true definition of "fool's gold." Lowry's shooting surprised everyone. I will readily admit to that. However, his success as the starting PG did not.
Since you seem to have everyone else figured out, I was wondering if you could help me in understanding you and your fellow AB boys? Why can't you and other Brooks backers just admit they were wrong without any caveats? No more of this stuff: "It wasn't AB it was the role we asked of him"...false "Ab might not have been a great passer but he was still a decent passer"...false "Yea lowry is good now, but he wasn't better than AB in 2009"...false "Lowry only shined because of the bench competition he faced"...false "Lowry wasn't deserving of the starting role until he proved his shot had improved"....again false "our record with ab was 42-40 and with lowry it was 43-39 so there obviously wasn't that big of a difference in how we played as a team or at the pg position"... r****ded This is one of the rare instances in sports where these I told you so situations can actually be proven with relative certainty. The guys were on the same team and played the same position. Not only does the statistical evidence point to Lowry being the superior player, but the man who runs the team and makes the roster decisions ultimately knew that Lowry was the man for the job. Why can't the rest of you do the same? The only reason you still have people "beating their chests and pinching their nipples" is because of the people like you who can't/won't see the truth about the whole situation, simple as that.
jordnnnn, I think a lot of people, myself included already did that in the "Eat Crow" thread. And for the record, I think Brooks was the better player in 09-10, and Lowry passed him by this last year - some of that due to AB being injured etc, but never the less, Lowry was the better player. Also, I am not satisfied with either of them as an elite PG, when they are right, they bring different skillsets to the table, and depending upon what you like out of your starting PG, you are going to lean that way. For me, I liked AB's ability to get his own shot, and he was a danged good passer as well, I was willing to accept his defensive shortcomings because he had elite quickness and a deep dead eye 3 ball. With Kyle, my problem with him was that he was a very streaky shooter, he reminded me a little of Rafer in that regard, and after 3ish years of Rafer, it left a sour taste in basketball, at least for me. I like Kyle, I like AB, depending upon the rest of the roster, I would be ok with either one of them starting, but neither of them is an elite level PG. AB is too short, and smallish on defense, and has trouble when trapped at the top of the key. Kyle is a bulldog on both ends, but is not that quick laterally, and his shot had been inconsistent prior to last year - I certainly like him a lot more now...lol. So, to answer your question, I guess I feel I have answered that question a lot, and to see this argument still tossed around, when it really is a matter of personal taste or opinion as to what style you prefer to watch, is mind numbing. Both of them were good for the team, both of them could be starters on a championship team, NEITHER of them will lead a team anywhere as the main guy. As for the "I told ya so" crowd, good for them.....Kyle is indeed a very good starting PG. DD
You know why that worked so well? It was because when RA stuck them both in the game together, Lowry was the PG and AB was the SG. AB was an undersized scoring guard in the vein of a SG (shooting guard) and his strengths are best utilized coming off screens and playing off the ball as a shooter. He is hardly the numero uno scorer that he fancied himself as. It is undeniable that the team offense instantly looked better when the reigns were handed over to Lowry.
Somewhat, but lets' not forget that AB had to carry a starting unit of Hayes and Ariza, which were pretty much zeroes on the offensive end. AB is not as bad as some folks around here are trying to make him out to be, he was just more of a scoring PG, in the Tony Parker mold, and it gets down to a matter of preference for what role you personally like to see a PG play. I am ok with either, it just depends upon the rest of the roster.... DD
I am not sure how you can even say that with a straight face given his piss poor TO to assist ratio. Guy couldn't pass twice without giving up the ball once. That is NOT the indicator of a "danged good passer."
He improved a lot over the course of his year as a starter, and was making some very nice passes, his role though was not a traditional PG one, he was asked to carry the burden of scoring first and then set up teamates. While he is not as good as Lowry at passing the ball, AB was a pretty danged good passer. His AtoT ratio certainly could get better, but I contend over time, it would have...he would never be that pass first guy, but he could have continued to improve in that area....IMO. DD
No one has denied he wasn't a pretty good scorer. Don't insult Parker by comparing AB to him. Parker is slippery smooth penetrating to the rim and he can actually finish when he gets there. AB is predominantly a shooter with piss poor finishing ability. A scoring PG is fine if as long as he is not the primary scorer or we have another player who can distribute the ball. If we have no set ball distributor, AB needed to take the backseat in scoring and focus on distribution more. If AB is to improve (I sincerely hope he does), he needs to realize his shortcomings as well as the balance and responsibilities that comes with his desired position.
I hope he can improve his passing and I saw those passes that you refer to as well and IMHO those were bailout passes or ones that came from gradual accumulated experience. If you play with teammates long enough, you typically know where they should be. I am stressing the AtoT, because it has not really improved over his years. In fact, it has stayed eerily similar. His first three years, he had a rounded AtoT of 1.9 EACH season. That reflects pretty much 0 true improvement. His last season with us, he actually got worse. 09-10 he was given a free pass because we had offensive deadweights in Ariza, Battier, and Hayes while Yao was out with a broken foot. That was fine and he stepped into the role admirably. When Martin came to our team, he should have taken a step back into a more traditional PG mode and fulfilled his role as PG. Like I said, if he can realize what he needs to do better and actually improve, he can become a good PG.
Not trying to attack you or anything, I just have to know why you think he is a good passer. What is it about him that makes you overlook everything that says he is terrible and still arrive at the conclusion that he is in fact a good passer? Rank among ALL qualified PG's for the 09/10 season AST/Game - 19th AST ratio - 59th AST/TO - 44th AST/48 - 31st
Because I watched the games and saw the passess with my own eyes. His job was the starting PG, but his role was to score, thus he was not looking to pass as much as other PGs. Doesn't matter though, he is not a Rocket any longer. DD
Well... he is playing behind one of the best PG's of the current era. Hopefully he soaks up as much as he can from Nash.
Is that official? Is he staying there? I would hope for his sake that he gets to move on, or that they move Nash. DD
I too have functional eye balls and agree that his role was to score and not pass as much. I also think there was a damn good reason his was role was to score and not look to pass very often.... He CAN'T pass and lacks the overall court awareness a good PG should have no matter the role he is asked to play. If he could have passed like Lowry, while at the same time scoring as he did then we would have had the next chris paul on our hands and Lowry would be the one playing for some other team right now. I love stats, but I am by no means the person who turns to stats first to form my opinion. Just because I use stats and don't site specific plays as examples of why I think he is a terrible passer doesn't mean that I didn't watch all the games and see things with my own eyes. I watched the games, saw the awful passing, then used the stats to see just how bad that passing really was. Not the other way around. So now that we are on the same page here and understand that we both watched the same games and the numbers used here were accumulated from those very same games we watched, I still am left wondering how someone who clearly watches a ton of basketball can still come to the conclusion that Aaron Brooks is anything more than a mediocre passer.
