Vecsey: Rockets looking for a PG and a big man on the QT

Heinrich was a big part of the Bulls team that got out of the first round not too long ago. I know Rafer made it out with miami, but he had D Wade on his side. The Bulls had no one even close to his ability on that team.

 

who on that list guards chris paul/tony parker/deron williams? or do you want tmac chasing them around?

 

regular season success and seeding do not equal championship contenders.

typically NBA teams have to take steps toward a championship. they have to get to big games and lose, then do better next time. then keep taking steps forward until they get to understand how to win in the playoffs. experience is necessary for playoff success. at least thats what history shows.

you have a team that has yet to win anything in the playoffs. what makes you think they are championship caliber? an 8 game winning streak against mostly inferior competition?

as i said earlier, playoff contenders most certainly. championship contenders? i think thats a hell of a reach for a team that hasnt won in the playoffs.

 

Keep Brooks,but bring on Delonte West too.

 

My thought on that is when we play them with Rafer, we don't have Rafer guard them anyways. We put Shane on all of them when we are trying to slow them down, after they have burned Rafer to pieces.

I'm really intrigued by big backcourts like this...........come playoff time. Because playoff basketball turns into halfcourt basketball, it turns into execution in the half court.

Look at some of the greatest teams in the NBA over the last 25 years. Look at the Lakers for example. A 6'8" point guard and a 6'4" shooting guard. Who guarded all the points back then? How about Boston, DJ and Ainge, neither the quintessential point guard, both of them at least 6'4".

Bulls--Jordan, Pippen, and a shooting mut (Armstrong, Paxson, or Ron Harper).

Come to think of it, since 1980, something like 18 of the teams that won the championship had their offense initiated by a player 6'4" or taller, and the vast majority of the others that had a smaller playmer, had another primary option and essentially the point guard played off of that playmaker (eg Hakeem, Duncan, etc.)

Fallacies of thinking you have to have a small point guard on the court:

1. You need a small guy that can run fast to initiate your fast break. This is bologna. Magic Johnson did not run fast, Steve Nash is not a fast runner. What you need to run a fast break is a point guard that can see the floor, handle, and distribute, and two wings that can fly like the wind.

2. You gotta have a small point guard with quicks to defend the opposing team's point guard. Once again, bologna. Lakers, Celtics, Bulls all proved that wrong.

I would like to see Adelman trot out a huge lineup like this once in a while, kinda the ANTI-DON NELSON lineup. McGrady is a great distributor and sees over the whole defense. He obviously wants this role, doesn't seem to be happy operating off the ball, which essentially leaves our point guard playing off the ball anyways. Why not have a real shooter out there instead of Rafer?

 

Except 1-Whose the ballhandler? Against this lineup, I'd use some sort of pressure defense(full, half court or half court trap) on every inbounds play. TMac doesn't bring the ball up court well. When he is the point forward for any length of time, his shooting % goes down. He exerts too much energy at the point forward & is tired at the end of the game when we need him most.

The only true ball handlers we have on this team are Alston & Brooks .

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to have Miller on the Rockets & I'd like to see that lineup OCCASSIONALLY, but not as our main lineup. Our rotation would be Yao, Scola, Battier, TMac, Alston, Landry, Miller, Brooks & Hayes(depending on who we gave up to get Miller).

 

no, not at all. in fact completely the opposite. it is by trying to win championships and failing that the team gains the experience to succeed.

compare it to a rookie (take durant) acclimating himself to the NBA game. over time a player learns how to have success, both as an individual, and for his team. the playoffs seem to work the same way. teams have to learn how to succeed, and most of the time that involves failure.

the thing that separates Houston from the celtics, lakers, and denver is that each of those teams has a major piece that HAS been there. KG has been to the WCF, KB24 has been to the finals and won, AI has been to the finals, so thats at least one major cog on each of those teams that can help the team through the playoffs with their experience. who do the rockets have? mike james? rick adelman? neither of them are on the floor when it counts. lest we forget the Jazz, the dubs, the spurs, mavs, and phx, who all have something the rockets dont, again, experience winning in the playoffs.

so again, the rockets know what it takes to get into the playoffs, but they have not shown that they know what it takes to win in the playoffs yet. until they win at least once in the postseason, you cant seriously consider them a championship contender can you?

 

I would put Battier since he is our best perimeter defender. Alston gets destroyed by these guys anyway, its not like we'd be giving anything away on defense.

 

I think TMac would handle the ball the majority of the time. He wants to be the distributor, just listen to his interviews. His shooting percentages are down right now anyway, even with Alston in the lineup. Not many teams pressure full court, and when they do, its not like Rafer is a press killer. TMac is big enough to look over any type of trap or press. I really wouldn't anticipate any problem with that and Mike Miller is a decent ball handler in the open court once TMac gets the ball out. Plus, with all the people that could score the ball for the Rockets at that point, teams would stop trying to press or trap when the Rockets are scoring easy baskets repeatedly.

 

We need a big PG off the bench who can play some D. Having a nice 3pt shot would be an added bonus.

I'm looking at Cassell or maybe one of the Sonics PG's (Delonte West), as a good PG off the bench.

Brooks is okay, but he will be abused in a half-court game when other PG's back him down.

I would also like to add that I'm happy with Rafer's play. Everything but his shooting has been above and beyond my expectations (for 2008 at least). Keep it up.

 

I think it is probably too late. Adelman has settled his starting lineup and rotation. I do want to see the experiment of using TMac as our PG.

TMac is our best passer and best penetrator. Asking him to play PG might put a psychological restraint for him from shooting too many jump shots. And he can still punish people with his shot when they play off of him.

Play Head, Brooks or Bonzi as SG alongside him, depending on matchups. Bring Rafer out when TMac needs a break.

 

I'd rather have Rafer or Brooks push the ball then let T-mac make plays - this saves T-mac energy (which he doesn't have much of)... It seems so easy for Brooks to break one-on-one pressure bec of his quickness