Clyde's definitely being a homer, AB's good but to get into the Nash, CP3, DWill echelon you have to perform at a consistently high level for a long period of time. AB hasn't been around long enough to warrant being up there and unfortunately he's gonna be competing with the Reke, Westbrook, Collison and all the other young guards for the rest of his career.
Taking only this year into account, here's my list. 1st Steve Nash Derron Williams Chris Paul Chauncey Billups Derrick Rose 2nd Aaron Brooks Rajon Rondo Jason Kidd Jameer Nelson Mo Williams 3rd Russel Westbrook Tony Parker Tyreke Evans Stephan Curry Andre Miller My reasoning is as follows 1st tier: I don't really think there is any arguing over this one. If not, ask yourself this...would you trade Aaron for any one of these guys straight up? Your answer should be hell yes unless you've completely lost it. 2nd tier: Aaron is better than Kidd, Rondo, Nelson and M. Williams. If you disagree ask yourself this, if any one of those teams lost two of their main players to injury could the PG carry the team the way Aaron at times has to at least a .500 win percentage? Seriously, if Dallas lost Dirk and Marion, if Boston lost Pierce and Garnett, if Orlando lost Howard and Lewis, and if Cleveland lost Lebron and...Shaq? where would they be? Would they be over .500 or even close? 3rd tier: Same story as above except even more pronounced. Tony Parker has slipped majorly this year. It's sad but very true.
So yeah, Aaron is close to breaking the top 5. Assuming Nash or Billups falls off due to age Aaron could sneak in there. Only problem with that theory is he's got Westbrook, Evans, Curry, Jennings and eventually John Wall to contend with in the future. So ultimately, no he is not top 5 and Clyde was being a homer. Actually I think he just says things. He says the same thing about a lot of our opponents as well.
I think this is kind of a silly discussion. He is a really solid pg. Obviously not the best pg in the league, but I'd say we're pretty set at the pg position with him starting. He can be a really solid player for the Rockets for a long time.
I'd easily take Kidd/Rondo over Brooks, and Williams/Nelson's numbers are so similar to Brooks' that it's sheer homerism to claim Brooks is superior. Since when is it a PG's job to carry the team through scoring? Your question only add validity to the opinion that Brooks is an undersized SG, not a PG.
Since the teams best player went down for the season and he is the most skilled and offensively potent player on the court (next to martin). Points have to come from somewhere, he shot 11-17 from the field, and has the ability to break the defense down the best. I don't understand what point you're trying to make by brooks carrying the team in scoring. He does it at a nice % and has been dishing out more assists with martin in the starting lineup (9 tonight) Basketball isn't an archetypical sport, especially not in adelman's system. The person who scores the most is the one that is the most skilled. And in adelman's system, regardless of who that is, it will open things up for other guys. I couldn't imagine where this team would be without brooks this year and last. They wouldn't have beaten portland or would have gotten swept by LA, and they would be just as bad as everyone predicted them to be at the beginning of the season. The worst team in the league.
Just for fun, since Martin has arrived Brooks stats are: PTS: 23.16 AST: 6.16 FG%: 47.8 3P%: 33.7 The only thing that really surprised me there is the 3 Point percentage. Thought it would have been higher. Looking at the log though, he's consistenly around 40% most games, but then you throw in a 2-13 clunker against Sacto and 2-10 against Detroit and it gets brought down pretty quick. As for assists, its clear having more weapons to pass to is helping. One thing to remember is that no PG is going to ever rack up huge assists numbers in this offense. It's not a PG dominated system like NO, PHO, or UTH. I don't know if he's top 5, but I think he's close enough that we shouldn't worry about it
everyone is making their list...so heres mine... (no particular order) Nash Paul Williams Billups Kidd Westbrook Parker Rondo Rose Curry Miller Brooks etc... too many to list
I think the difference that Martin is providing is keeping the defense a little bit more spaced. Aaron is finishing plays at the rim at 59% in his last 10 games. He is at 50% for the season on close shots like that. So before Martin got here he was shooting a but under that 50% mark. That's where his FG% improvements have come from. I agree though about the clunkers skewing his 3p%.
Great discussion guys. Sorry I couldn't participate more. I don't watch as much basketball as I should. I know I don't watch as much as I want to. This season, all I've watched have been maybe a dozen Rockets games, so I can't really compare Brooks to anyone playing now. I think the kid is a solid player, and can't imagine trading him for many other PGs. But like I said, I don't have any kind of grasp on who's out there right now. Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
not to mention that for the same reason he has brooks so low, he has Arenas, the ultimate ball hog chucker above him. Irony is a funny thing.
Assuming that the players are in no particular order in their respective teams I would have to say this list is most accurate. Jammeer is better than brooks IMO, probably due to experience, but I woudl switch westbrook with Mo Williams.
and not to mention this guy is only 6 ft, can anybody imagine if this guy was 6'3 or 6'4 he would've been freak of nature..
I would not trade Brooks for Nash or Billups, who are both getting old and won't be around much longer and have expensive contracts. Are they better players right now? Of course, but I'm not going to trade the future for a rental on a declining star. That's just a really bad way to run a franchise, as been demonstrated again and again in all three major sports. We don't know yet what Brooks is going to develop into, but since he's an RFA, we can have him throughout his prime for years to come without breaking the bank. Derrick Rose is a tougher one to analyze. They're both score-first point guards, similar efficiency, similar points per game, below average defense... similar in a lot of ways on the surface, in terms of their production. Rose is younger, bigger, and more physical, so you could definitely argue that his ceiling is higher. Brooks has a more complete skillset, with a much better jumper, and he doesn't rely on taking the ball into the paint like Rose does... he can score all over the court with ease. Rose does have an edge, but it's a lot closer than you might think. At this point I just don't know whether I'd make the trade, because I love Brooks and we drafted him and brought him up to the level he's at now.
