Is Aaron Brooks good or bad? Does he actually contribute to winning??

Anyone who says Aaron is our future needs to be banned from watching NBA.

Aaron is too small to be our future, period.

 

I agree if AB can be as good as Bobby Jackson, we'd be lucky.

Apparently Jackson was never a player same caliber as Parker, so please don't compare AB to Parker. There were so much for Parker to develop because he was not even 20 at that time and it was his first year in NBA coming from a different country just like Yao , but how old is AB now? Not to mention it's his 2nd full year in NBA already.

 

If you can't see the similarities in Tony Parkers game and ABs, I can't help you. When he came into the league, all the Spurs fans wanted to trade him because he was inconsistant and had no court vision. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

 

Yes they are similar at this early stage in their NBA Career. But I dont think AB's ceiling is as high simply because of his age. Parker was 20 at this stage, Brooks is 25. I would love to see it come to fruition, but I also wont be surprised if Brooks falls somewhere between Bobby Jackson and Tony Parker. Which IMO would be a great thing, especially if Lowry proves good enough to beat him out as the starter next year. He certainly is on a good path to doing just that.

 

You're making stuff up. Parker's court vision was always good, he made all rookie 1st team that year, took starting job from Antonio Daniels, whom I would rather have over AB had they have the same age.

And physically, Parker is taller, stronger, just as quick as AB, I don't see how you can compare AB to him.

 

Not very similar imo.

Tony Parker led the league in "points in the paint", He is a dominant player around the basket.


AB plays a MUCH different style/brand of basketball.....

 

I agree, but not because of size...

 

If you think anyone is comparing their games in 2008-09 then you must have misread something. The comparison is Brooks now(not even a full season of starts under his belt) vs Parker as a rook/second year player.

 

Compare AB's 2nd year with Parker's first year without considering age difference is plain ignorant.

Many guys come into NBA after 4 years in college have had better or equal first year than KG and Kobe, but how many eventually develop into those type of players?

 

I agree with your comments except about court vision. Parker is average at best in court vision for a PG (and I think benefits from TD and a healthy Manu in keeping his team organized in the half court). But he excels in many areas Brooks I don't think can ever touch.

 

Parker's court vision is on Lowry's level, good but not that special like Chris Paul or Steve Nash etc.

AB isn't on that level yet.

 

That all may be true, but he also caused Poppovich to pull his hair out alot, alot of the Spurs fans wanted him gone, and they even considered a deal shipping him to the Nets for Kidd.


And seriously, Antonio Daniels?? Yes I am considering that you would take a 02-03 Daniels over an 08-09 Brooks but I am still having a hard time seeing that. Other than the fact that Daniels was a veteran at the time and Brooks is still young.

To not be able to understand why the comparisons are being made(even if you dont agree with them) is very close minded. I think its probably a bit far fetched, but that doesnt stop me from understanding why the comparison is made.

 

We'll see.

 

This is why next season Lowry may be starting and Brooks will be that spark off the bench teaming up with Von Wafer and Carl Landry. But who knows, the lack of the 3ball may hurt Lowry just as much. Going to be an interesting camp next year.

 

Hopefully Lowry can improve his 3 point shooting or Morey can pull another magic trick from his bag to land a real good PG.

 

But try to ship a rookie PG for Kidd in 2001-2002 shows you how good he actually was.

 

I don't know why some people are freaking out about Brooks.

#1, we have a better PG waiting in the wings. This isn't a situation where our backup is Moochie Norris. We have a fantastic, young, true PG in Kyle Lowry who will likely be starting next season. We aren't stuck with Brooks as our only option. We have a replacement already on the roster. Kyle Lowry is a Houston Rocket and he isn't going anywhere.

#2, for the most part, Adelman has let Lowry finish games when Brooks is struggling.

Adelman isn't blind. None of the internet posters around here see anything that Adelman doesn't. He knows Brooks has serious weaknesses in his game. People are assuming that Adelman believes Brooks is the better player when it is entirely possible that the only reason Lowry isn't starting is because he joined the team halfway through the season. If Brooks is still starting next season, I could understand the concerns.

#3, even with Brooks' weaknesses and inconsistency, we are winning a lot of basketball games. We are up 3-1 in the 1st round despite Brooks effectively being a no show last night. Adelman saw Lowry's effectiveness and Brooks' ineffectiveness and didn't hesitate to bench Brooks and let Lowry close things out.

 

Oh those Tony Parker comments re always fun. Parker didn't have any college ball experience when he first came into the League, did he? BTW, did anyone watched him play this season when both TD and MG were out?

 

I like Brooks as well as Lowry, though I am some doubtful either of whom is what you want to start on an elite team. Then again the Lakers are playing Fisher/Brown/Farmar, the Celts of last year had a rather ordinary Rondo (he has majorly elevated his game this year), and the Cavs have the shoot 1st non-traditional PGs of Mo Williams/Gibson, and most people would consider those teams elite.

Also, if either Lowry or Brooks add a little more to their game, they might be starter material enough. Lowry is only barely 23 by the way, and Brooks just a year and a couple months older. It isn't like there isn't a good chance one or both makes substantive improvements to their game. Look at Rondo (one month older than Lowry), now that he is into his 3rd year of starting (though with over a years worth of game experience than Brooks or Lowry) and with the confidence of winning. We need to get Lowry in a little leaner and working on his J all summer, and get Brooks more experience in a true PG role (set-up 1st, score 2nd), and see what we got.

So I am a little torn between staying with the Brooks/Lowry tandem for the future, or if changes need to be made. I will say a little thing, that I really liked, was the way those went in the hallway after game 4 together all pumped. They look like they are great teammates happy to play with each other and share the role, that is not a small thing.

That said with Bibby and Miller as FAs, I would not be against going for one of them with either Brooks or Lowry to back them up. But we don't HAVE to make a PG move because these two are OK and with development potential (unlike Alston, who was OK but ZERO growth potential). Only look for a definitive upgrade.

 

Our Role players are ROLE players,
but some people think they are suppose to be superstars.

we are dealt a set of cards for this team and Rick the Ruler is playing the cards right.