Hell yes, he should be starting. In about three weeks, however long it takes Adelman and Morey to say, What the hell, we did good on drafting Brooks, he can be our Tony Parker, to hell with Steve "I-Don't-Want-to-Play-Anymore" Francis and Mike "They-Traded-me-Once-They-can-Trade-me-Again" James. The only dynamic I can imagine in altering Brooks' ascendancy is some sort of roster shakeup, but even then, I don't see any stellar point guards en route to Houston via trade any time soon, so it shouldn't effect Brooks.
My point exactly. He's lost, but with playing time he should get better at staying with his man and get a few steals. But for this season, the main story will be seeing what facets of his offense will work in the NBA. This is what will earn him playing time in our rotation. Brooksball, repeat something wrong twice doesn't make it right. Nash isn't a good defender but AB is worse right now.
Nash brings an MVP level game to the offensive end which makes it alot easier to overlook any defensive liabilities. If Brooks reaches that level I am sure the fans will alot more forgiving of his defense too.
brooks shouldn't start yet, but he definitely deserves PT. if our rookies never play, how in hell will they ever develop?? we mine as well be like the suns and just trade our draft picks away every year if we're not gonna use em.
brooks has definitely earned significant minutes and should be our primary backup at pg. alston should continue to start however; he has shown his value in the games without him.
Alternatively, repeating it twice doesn't mean it is wrong, either. Nash is a lousy defender. Brooks has better defensive abilities than Nash. You are right in the sense that Brooks is not as good of a defender RIGHT NOW. That will change quickly and is not due to Nash's superior individual defensive skills. Your point is irrelevant because even the best defensive PG in the history of the NBA had to go through a learning curve early in his career. I am not saying that Brooks understands the defensive schemes of his team better than Nash understands the Suns' defensive schemes. He doesn't but that is only a function of time, and a small amount of time. I am saying that Brooks has more raw defensive abilities than Nash. He is quicker on his feet, a better rebounder, much quicker laterally and has quicker hands than Nash. Brooks will learn the schemes over the course of a few weeks if he gets consistent playing time. Once he does, he will be a better defender than Nash. Of course, that isn't saying much because Nash is a lousy defender. Only because of his incredible intelligence is Nash even servicable defensively. Nash is an offensive genius. So much so, that his defensive inadequacies don't even garner attention. There are other starting point guards that are poor defenders, too. The only point I was initially making is that even if Brooks does not become a good defender (still better than Nash), one can not draw the conclusion that he has no future in this league as a starting PG.
Exactly. Agreed. Thank you. Again, I wasn't comparing Brooks to Nash, overall. I was just pointing out that there is a chance that Brooks can overcome any defensive liabilities.
You go ahead and read your crystal ball. I don't see good instincts on defense from AB. Maybe he can learn but I don't think he's ever tried to play much defense in his career. In the two games I saw him play at Oregon he played virtually no defense and he looks lost right now. Perhaps he will develop in the future. Like everyone else, I'm talking about right now which is VERY relevant. It would have been nice if you had mentioned the future tense before, if that's what you actually meant. I don't know who has already concluded AB "has no future in this league as a starting PG". It's too early to tell. As stated earlier: "I'm not sold AB will ever be a starting caliber PG" and stand by that. The question is if his offense develops enough to overcome his deficiencies on the other end. Each game we see a little more to give us hope.
I am mentioning the future tense now. Disregard the posts that lacked the future tense regarding Brooks needing time to get familiar with defensive schemes. Many people, inside and outside of this forum, have stated that they don't see Brooks as a starting PG in this league, including yourself. Aside from the semantics, I equate "Brooks has no future in this league as a starting PG" with "I'm not sold AB will ever be a starting caliber PG", especially when those are arguments are based on assumptions that he will get abused on the defensive end. Again, there are many qualtiy starting PGs, like Nash, in this league who are not very good defenders due to athletic limitations and other reasons. They make up for it in other ways. At this point, I am confident Brooks will do the same. Regarding those two games you watched Brooks play at Oregon, there is plenty of reason not to place too much weight on those performances. First, Brooks' draft value appreciated markedly during his senior year leading scouts to praise his capacity for improving upon his weaknesses. Second, the college game is very different from the NBA. In general, there are a lot of players that don't realize their potential defensively in college due to a lack of emphasis on that area by their coaches and the systems they play in. The same can be true for other aspects of a player's game. At the same time, some players do not live up to expectations as they are unable to certain things as well as a pro. The point is that it is very hard to predict whether a player will be better or worse at certain things in the NBA based on the way they played in college. I stand by my belief that Brooks' defensive weaknesses will not prevent him from becoming a good starting PG in this league. I strongly believe that his offensive abilities will outweight any of his long-term defensive deficiencies. I respect your opinion that you don't sense that he will be a starting-caliber PG. I wouldn't be shocked if that holds true, but from what I have seen, I feel the opposite. I am sold that Brooks will soon be a starting-caliber PG in this league.
I think AB will be a good player off the bench at the most imagine him trying to guard a billups iverson deron williams.
Adelman on Brooks: "I hope he continues to get better every game," Adelman said. "He pushes the ball, he creates and he gets the ball into the teeth of the defense easier than anybody we have. We all feel like he's going to make shots, it's just a matter of getting comfortable. I think it's going to be process for him to figure out what he can and can't do. But I do like the way he gets into the middle of the defense and finds people. He's so quick and fast. If we create space for him, he'll make something happen."
Brooks looks good. There is simply no denying that: the ESPN website singled him out for praise after the Chicago game. The other factor is Alston, the starting point guard. I wouldn't argue that Brooks should start over Steve Nash, or Tony Parker. But the reality of the situation is that Alston is mediocre at best.
Since AB is a Rocket, I want you to be right. When he's in the game, I often find myself watching him instead of the ball. I'm pulling for him and Scola to become impact players in short order to salvage our season.
I do understand your point, as well. It is really too early to say anything concrete about Brooks. Things could swing in either direction at this point. Neither of us have a crystal ball. You are leaning one way and I am leaning toward the riskier proposition in this case. Truthfully, since very few diminutive PGs become bonafide starters in this league, there is stronger support for your argument. It is a conservative and reasonable projection to say that Brooks faces real challenges to entrench himself in a starting role. He absolutely must excel in other areas in order to make up for his lack of size, but I am more concerned with weight than height in his case. He is a legit 6'0" by NBA standards and has large hands and relatively long wingspan for his height. Compared to other small players not named Iverson, Ford or Ellis, he lacks the body mass to body up against most NBA PGs. The truth is he is like a 6" taller version of Earl Boykins, much like Iverson and Ellis. I think Brooks' incredible speed, shooting ability and strong ball-handling skills will allow him to overcome any size issues and succeed in this league, as has been the case with Ford and Ellis. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to compare him to either of those guys who both earned starting roles early in their careers. The odds are against him but there are noticeable aspects of Brooks' game that make me go out on a limb, prematurely, and argue that he possesses the overall package to become a legitimate starting PG.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V1l2QFDKvGY&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V1l2QFDKvGY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> you think brooks could have defended that? alot of the time, i think he feels he needs to help others on D, so he backs off his man. but its too often that guards like stoudamire and lowry were able to drive in on him yesterday. i think that one day he might be better at d, but not today