Not trying to pick a fight here or anything but just how can you conclude that Brooks is the better shooter if the numbers say otherwise? He's closer to Mugsy Bogues than he is to Chris Paul and that's the problem. He's nowhere close to being a legitimate 6' PG and that will forever define him. His speed is impressive but, in and of itself, not enough to compensate for his small stature. These observations are indicative of what I consider to be dangerous because they are making Brooks out to be something he's simply not. They raise expectations to an unrealistic level and when AB fails to realize those expectations, he'll suffer the wrath of all of those folks who wanted him to be more. Parker is less talented than Brooks? Now that's what I call really going out on the perverbial limb...
Saying Brooks should've got some of Rafer's minutes is a joke. Rafer was our most reliable PG while Brooks got burned defensively by opposing PG's most of the time. Had Adelman let Brooks play 10 more minutes per game, I gaurantee we would've lost 3-4 more games. Adelman did a great job in picking his spots for Brooks to get in, notably in 2nd qtrs whenever we had a small cushion. However, half the time he would get owned defensively and not contribute much offensively. It'll take Brooks at LEAST 3-4 seasons before he's capable of becoming a full-time starter, but I think he'll just be a backup who provides a change of pace for most of his career.
I think Brooks will be something very special in the league, he's definetly a homerun pick for the rockets. I don't know about comparing him to Tony Parker, Tony has always had an incredible skill to get in the lane and finish. Both players have another gear as well. But watching Brooks in college makes me think that he is far and away a much better shooter at this stage of his career than what Parker was. The Spurs shooting coach has really worked on his jumper the last few years which has really propelled Parker into the upper echelon of PGs. Both players have some serious jets. One time during this season I saw Brooks go up and dunk the basketball with incredible ease, just blew me away how high he got up. Both Parker and Brooks don't play above the rim either, so height in my opinion is not that big an issue especially when you possess the quicks that they have.
Thread maker is high. However, PGs take a while to develop. Brooks has flashes of brilliance, so the Rockets should keep him around for a while.
if Brooks was a few inches taller their game can be similar. Right now Brooks looks lost out there and can't run the offense like Parker can.
When Parker came into the league, the Spurs announcers hyped him so much a lot of us made of it and called him "Jesus" (me included). I thought he was WAY overrated. In that vein, AB can hopefully prove his doubters wrong. I was certainly wrong about Parker.
If you just knew how much Parker worked to become what he is today from his rookie year. Brooks certainly has talent but it's up to him will he work his way up to the NBA's best.
I'm sticking around like my man DD . Here's what I'm saying is that I had a chance to watch about 20 games plus the playoffs of paker as a rookie. He had the same struggles as a smallish pg as Brooks has now. From Payton to Kidd, they were having their way with Parker. In fact, Claxton was finishing most games. We're talking about a Parker that had been playing pro ball in France. People responding want to look at Parker today and that's my intent. Parker as a rookie avg 9ppg 3 asst and shot 41% and 30 3ptfg. Now its easy to say how many more wins the spurs would have had if the had just stuck with Antonio Daniels and let Parker play 15 mins per. Pop took a gamble because he saw the best of daniels. We've seen the best of rafer. He's going to always be a 37% shooter for 2/3 of the season and a 42% shooter for the other 3rd. That's what he is. Then people have the nerve to talk like rafer is d-ing someone up. Go look at the 4th qt of game 4 when williams killed him play after play down the stretch. Once again, we know what rafer is and once again when he was out at the end of the season, the rookie played pretty good. Rafer isn't going to help the rox as a significant player. He's a bench player that is riding mcgrady coattails. Cut the cord, end the movie, and grow some nuts like pop did and move on. If I'm going to have a inconsistent player, at least I'd rather have Brooks because he can actually get better.
I can't envision Brooks as a starter on a championship caliber team in this league. The bigger points will just eat him alive by backing him down. He's a nice change of pace player and good as a back up, but I don't see him as a starter. BTW, I don't want to see Brooks in Parker or Parker in Brooks. That just ain't right.
I think Brooks has a fighting chance if he works his ass off and has a very good mentor (Deke). IMO, any rookie who has had a chance to play with Deke will understand chemistry is the most important. In fact, Deke probably gave scola, landry and brooks some of his teachings already. Brooks seems like a very hard working kid to me. I think the reason he was so inaccurate in terms of his jumpshot in the playoffs was because it is the playoffs . The pressure and atmosphere is different, and no matter what people say, every rookie in our team suffered and choked, even landry despite the fact he made some winning plays. You could tell Landry was not confident, and was afraid to solo his way through and dunk. I actually kind of see a little mix of Parker and Robinson in brooks. Brooks resemble a weaker and slightly less atheletic version of robinson, but with incredible speed. Still, its way too early to tell how good brooks will become. Some rookies develop early in their years, some develop few years after they're a veteran.
We already know that is the case with Rafer. I am willing to take the chance that Brooks' speed (and his shooting ability) will be a real difference maker on this team.
tony parker became tony finals-mvp parker is because he has tim around, we'll see how arron rookie brooks go next season.
The OP must have some really good eyes, cus I don't see it at all. He'll be a decent backup at best. Not a starter.
Tony Parker choked in his first playoffs, eveyone does, from Jordan down to Horry who's won 7 titles. I think Parker has a future and if him and Yao can develop the CP3 and Chandler alley oop that would be an awesome weapon. I love his ability to get in the lane for a 15 ft stop and pull up jumper. Very similar to Little C (Calvin Murphy). Brooks can play and Rafer will come off the bench next season.
Another Amen, people need to stop comparing apples and oranges. Brooks can play and will get his next year. Please let him push the rock and tell Tmac and Yao to get on the run. We should average 107 pts per game next year if we sign Magette, Peitrus, Miller, etc...
Holy crap, I actually agree with leebigez on something. He's absolutely right though: people forget that Alston himself isn't that big and that he gets abused by bigger PG's who can play him physically. In fact, weren't people complaining about him earlier in the season because he constantly got beat out on the perimeter and Yao was picking up fouls trying to stop the opposing PG penetrating to the basket? Alston is a known quantity and he's mediocre. If the Rockets can't pick up a legitimate PG through trade they should give Brooks a ton of playing time and an opportunity to play his way into the starting position.
