1. At the cost of developing younger players? 2. How does this benefit the team if this individual is not in the organization in 6 months?
1). At this point in time, Aaron Brooks is what he will always be: a player who is useful when his shot is hot and on target. Trevor Ariza has shown the management more than enough at this point: A player who cannot make plays on offense. I do enjoy wis skills in defending the passing lanes. The rest of the point guards and shooting guards are complimentary players to Tracy McGrady. The front of court players will most likely receive improved enter passes and space. 2). Kindly note, that neither you nor I are aware of the team's future plans for Tracy McGrady, making it an assomption, hence that point is not worthy of discussion.
As the assumption of AB being what he is and not believing he still has room to grow? Same with Chase, Landry and Lowry? Why would you assume that integrating Tracy would automatically make these complimentary players any better with the "ball-stopper" track record that McGrady has?
Considering the growth of his passing ability just since the postseason last year, I dont know if its fair to say that. Also, last time I checked his layups/basket area hot zone is about 9-10% better than last year.
Aaron Brooks has obvious physical limitations that hamper his ability to see over his defenders, particularly on double man defense. In addition, he has not the skills/size to score in traffic, save the floater that he likes to throw up when in close proximity to the goal. These two facts are irrefutable and contribute to Aaron Brook's potential being limited. Chase Budinger, Carl Landry and Kyle Lowery all provide specialized skills off of the bench. I hope they continue to fill those roles, as they all have their limitations that prevent them from starting (Landry's lack of defense and Lowery's lack of long range shooting come to mind). Furthermore, Budinger is a rookie and will continue to receive his time off the bench for the remainder of the season as expected of him. Addressing your concern regarding Tracy's reputation as a ball stopper, you should watch game footage of players such as Chuck Hayes, Shane Battier and Steve Novak receiving open shots via crisp passes from Tracy McGrady at the end of the 4th quarter in clutch time! I also believe that McGrady would have received more assists in the past if Rafer Aslton was more efficient of a shooter. The bottom draw, is that Tracy Mcgrady has to be chewing at the bat to integrate his self into this offense. This has championship potential if he integrates fully (kindly note the 22 game streak of wins).
Sorry, but that is just flat out myopic and incorrect. Allen Iverson, Calvin Murphy, Tony Parker, CP3, tons of quality guards have been heighth challenged. No one can say what AB's potential is or isn't...the guy has started 50ish games..FIFTY !!!! And he is currently shooting 45%, 38% 3pters, and nearly 6 assists while scoring 17ppg. That is GREAT production from a guy who is only in his 3rd year and barely has any starting experience. There is a reason that all the announcers rave about him, and Kobe calls him Tony Parkerish...and JVG talks about how lucky the Rockets were to get a player of his abilities so late in the first round. Because, he is flat out GOOD, and is only getting better. Size is irrelevant. DD
I will look past your insult, DD and take the higher ground. There is a flaw in your comparisons. Calvin Murphy and Allen Iverson are/were significantly tougher players when it comes to finishing strong in the paint. Aaron Brooks has not shown the ability to consistantly finish in the paint like those players (does not possess the wiry strentgh of Calvin Murphy or Iverson's ability to absorb contact and finish drives to the goal), hence he has limited potential. Come to face it, DD, Aaron Brooks is wonderful when his shot is hot, but disappears from the game when not.
Let me add that a taller Russel Westbrook is shooting 50% under the basket, a taller Brandon Roy is shooting 57%, and a taller\stronger Chauncey Billups is shooting 53% under the basket. Aaron Brooks at 54% is in good company, and most certainly not a turnover in waiting when he penetrates the lane.
Sorry, wasn't trying to insult you just stating that you were taking a very narrow minded view, and one impossible to back up in only his 55ish start in the league. Actually Raj87, that is true of a lot of player, most everyone in fact...... And, a lot of that goes away with playing time and confidence developed over games and games of starting. Unless traded, our starting PG spot is secure for the next 7ish years with AB. DD
Aaron made 2 jump shots in last night game. I would venture a guess that of the 10 shots me missed, 7 or 8 were jumpers. So with his "shot" not with him yesterday, he still managed 27 pts( hey, lets take away the Tech foul shots) er 22 points and 6 assists. How did he get those points? Penetration and finishing at the rim. Hardly a disappearing job. But keep preaching the same old tired points.
Hoosiers is my favorite basketball movie... "Barely big enough for three syllables the Hickory Huskers"
I agree that Brooks should be the starting point guard. I was just pointing out that he has no business attempting to be option one for the Houston Rockets, especially as the primary playmaker.
Please kindly note that the majority of his penetration ends with Brooks avoiding contact and making a shot you would see at the circus or a Rafer Alston highlight reel.
This post is not worth addressing, as you are simply taking statistics out of context, which is unproductive to our discussion.
