It was both. The four PFs that were rated above Landry and Brooks were Splitter (who we should have taken with our #26 pick), McRoberts, Fazekas, and Davis (one of which we should have taken with the #31 pick, I lean toward McRoberts, but any of them would be a decent choice). The problem is that what the Rockets wanted was out of whack. They got what they wanted at 26 and 31 instead of getting the better players. While not a Rockets fan in the Horry and Cassell days, I was fine with Dickerson and KT and okay with Head though that is not the direction I would have gone (I would have preferred trading down or out of that draft). I thought the Langhi trade was bad, that Novak was overrated, and that Drew was a copy of Maloney who we already had and were not happy with anyway. I was happy about the Griffin deal, but who could have predicted his career would self-destruct so totally and horrifically. Not everyone who is displeased with the draft is someone that marches in lockstep with ESPN.
First just because Tajuan Porter is 5'6" doesn't mean he was the point guard on that team. His assists were under his turnovers. The primary distributor on that team was Brooks he was the point guard. Second, lighting up Green is not a big accomplishment and comparing his stats to him is not too good either. There is a reason Green went so low - his isn't very good. There are some big differences between Brooks and Acie Law. Acie Laws college career A/To ratio is 1.83 while Brooks' is 1.51. Acie Law shot 50% from the field last year and 46% from 3 point range. Brooks shot 46% from the field and 40.4% from 3 point range. Also those numbers were much higher than what he had averaged over the rest of his college career ?(~40% from the field and ~36% from 3 point). That is why people were salavating over Law and not Brooks. Better A/To ratio and much more efficient scorer Just because we got the choice doesn't mean we made the right one. Landry is 24 years old and coming back from ACL surgery. I am not wild about this pick either but I do have to admit I am glad it wasn't McRoberts. I would have preferred Davis if only because he is bigger and and a better rebounder. No, Morey and Adelman got the guard they wanted. I don't think anyone else really wanted a guard. Both Brooks and Landry were not projected to go this high despite what anyone else wants to say about Phoenix or any other team rumors. There is no telling what those teams were really going to do and they could have been blowing smoke to get teams to leave the players they really wanted alone. I was extremely happy with Cassell and Dickerson. I though Head was about as good as they could expect where they drafted and had the possibility of filling a need. I thought Langhi and Drew were mistakes. I thought everyone here went way overboard overestimating Novak and I thought the Griffen deal was too much for too little (though I did expect him to be better than he turned out). Again, I hope this guys prove me wrong. While I don't think they were tragic picks, I still don't see why you pick a point guard with poor court vision and a power forward who at 24 has probably reached his potential. I had to laugh at an earlier comment in the thread where someone thought the Rockets had learned their lesson with teaching someone a new skill. If Rafer can't learn to shoot better, what makes anyone think Brooks can learn to distribute the ball better?
McRobert's shot blocking seems nice, I agree, and it is who I thought we would take at 26. But for whatever other reason we thought he just wasn't NBA material, and he was there at #31. Oh I agree, you have a right to your opinion and you might be right. The more I look into it I like what we did, and I am usually a Rocket draft critic. But I was high on Brooks before the James trade and saw him a lot in Pac 10 country. Time will tell.
Here's an article on the reaction from the Brooks camp. http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/06/29/d1.sp.brooks.0629.p1.php?section=sports
Of course Brooks isn't as highly regarded as Law. Law went #11 and was viewed as the most NBA ready guard in the draft. But Brooks was a very efficient offensive player who lead the Pac 10. And their A/TOs are very close the last 2 years when Law developed as a primary scorer. Further, Law only had 1 year shooting better than Brooks last year. Statistically they are more similar than dissimilar. And again, Brooks #1 job was to take and make shots, not distribute. Oregon in particular had a run and gun team, he was expected to take a volume of shots and be aggressive, and he did it very efficiently, even against top defenses (UCLA, USC, Florida). The fact he also had respectable assists is a bonus. I would have picked Davis or McR, but they saw a lot more of these guys than I did. We will see. But they did have their choice. Big difference between a rook and a 30 year old. Brooks job in the offense Oregon ran wasn't to distribute. If Brooks is just somewhere between Boykins and Atkins as a player, that is better than you can expect at 26.
I think this guy will do well. I don't know much about this guy, but from what I've heard and seen, i think he can potentially have the quickness of a poor man's Allen Iverson, the ability score around the basket like a Earl Boykins, and already has the confidence of a Nate Robinson. He's the type of guy who plays bigger than his size and has a relentless attitude toward playing basketball. With this hard-nosed approach, he could become a fan favorite here in Houston.
Personally I like Aaron Brooks selection after watching some video of him. Also like this draft combine stats. Lane Agility. Brooks has 10.57, second best in the draft. In comparison, Acie Law has 11.0 and Mike Conley has 11.63. Vertical. Brooks has 39.5, fifth best in the draft. In comparison, Acie Law has 34 and Mike Conley has 40.5. The little dude is quick, atheletic, and seems fearless and clutch from the videos. http://www.mynbadraft.com/NBA-Draft-Combine-Results/
Just because they were "projected" (read: projected by guys running internet draft sites) doesn't mean the NBA teams think the same. Yes, those guys running draft sites and the journalists like Chad Ford work hard to track down rumors, but you think they spend more hours on this stuff than the team's actual front office staff? Anyhow, the picks may or may not turn out great (most low picks don't), but to make conclusions about their availability based on internet chatter is laughable. Also, I've figured out the secrets of pleasing the fans and "draft experts." All you gotta do is to ALWAYS pick the available guy who were projected highest by "experts." Then you get a high "draft grade." But if you pick someone that suprises your fans and didn't get hyped by Dick Vitale and Jonathan Givony... then your draft "sucks."
Well, there's an enormous amount of rationalization going on here about Brooks. Judging from all the posts from guys trying to support the selection of Brooks, it is clear that he's basically a SG in a small body sort of like JL3 but with much better offensive skills. Kid has a competitive attitude which I kinda like. But I have grave doubts that he will be able to translate his game to the pro level. Sure, he has speed to burn but as the old saying goes: You can't coach height. His size is what sours me on this selection because they desperately had to get bigger and faster in order just to keep pace with the rest of the Western Conference. But it is apparent that Morey and Adelman have decided to go in the opposite direction and are picking up average to slightly above average undersized players. I confess that I have no idea what their justification is for doing so. I was under the impression that in order compete, you have to, at the very least, match what the teams ahead of you are doing. So far this off season, that's not what Morey is doing because nothing he's done so far appears to enhance this team's fortunes against the big dogs in the West.
Hmm aren't Calvin Murphy, John Stockton and Steve Nash small guys? Didn't seem to bother them too much.
Well Murph was a small guy from a completely different basketball era. He had an enormous amount of basketball skill and knowledge. Now surely you aren't saying that Brooks is in the same league as Calvin are you? As for Stockton, he was 6-1 while Brooks is 5-10 (maybe). Again, is it your position that Brooks is in the same league as a guy who was voted one of the 50 greatest players in NBA history simply because both are on the smallish side? Steve Nash is 6-3 and is one of the best PGs playing the position today. I'm just curious how you can feel that an undersized guard like Brooks can compare to any one of these guys. If the intention behind the selection of Brooks is to say bye-bye to JL3, then I can sort of understand because I really wasn't that enamored of JL3 anyway. However, if they are trying to sell his selection as a true upgrade at the guard position - one that will make a real difference against guards in the West - then that's something I'm not prepared to buy at this point in time.
There have been a slew of less than 6 foot players that made the NBA. Not saying that they are going to be stars but they helped out and produced. That's all I'm asking for from Brooks. I'm not saying he's going to be a superstar. Mugsy Bogues and Spud Webb. Then Earl Boykins is in the league right now doing well and who wouldn't want Earl Boykens?? The guy can flat out ball and he's 5-5. Yeah size matters but someone who can flat out play is worth more than any 6'9" players who just stand around and act like pylons during the game.
Hillboy, I see you wouldn't trust this front office with anything. Who would you have picked now? No trades up please and you cannot pick the 25 players that was taken off the board. A PF? OK, do you think this player will be able to guard the elites of the west? OK, it's only the 26th pick right and you can't find the gem. Well, I submit to you that until the players the Rockets picked plays in a real NBA game, I wouldn't just say the picks were pigs. So relax, they have a plan and give them a break. That Davis dude on the Cavs was picked pretty low too. He did OK in the finals I guess. Doesn't that give you hope that maybe this Brooks dude may turn out OK. The front office said they will go for best available and they got who they wished for (except they didn't get the europe guard). But Brooks is 2nd on their board and Lundry was third. It's only fair to let them test their theory and maybe it will work. But at least let them try before you declare your theory/critique theory is better. Who knows. Wouldn't it be nice to have a young up and coming point guard for our future. I for one is hoping he becomes something special. He is a Rocket now so I am going to wish him and Landry well.
Hillboy has a right to be angry and mad. He feels victimized by the Rockets. He doesn't see a way out of it. He doesn't have to believe that Brooks will be an adequate backup or is a good talent. He doesn't have to believe there will be other point guards leaving. He may think the Rockets are in a never ending spiral, but that's his right. Even though Hillboy feels that way that doesn't mean Brooks can't contribute as a backup pt guard.
