You are probably right. The five or ten vocal Lowry supporters probably don't have a shot of changing the mind of the fanbase, the coach, the GM and the league. But, that shouldnt stop you from bumping the 8 Lowry vs Brooks threads every time Lowry has a good game.
It's interesting you think the GM and coach hold Brooks in such high regard. Care to make a tip-jar wager on whether or not he's the starting pg for the Rockets by the time the playoffs come?
A new wave of Lowry supporters? Obviously there has always been a small faction of clutchfans that preferred Kyle Lowry top Aaron Brooks. Pure pg over scoring pg, Size vs. speed, pure pg vs. scoring pg etc and etc. I was always under the belief that AB was the better fit. AB has shown a tremendous amount of ability, especially over the last season and a half. I was a firm believer after watching this team after the trading deadline last year that the Brooks/Martin combo was a strong weapon that needed be utilized as much as possible. Lowry was solid last year as well and was a more than serviceable sparkplug. I liked things as they were and I was good with the idea of the team starting this year with the same setup with the starting guards. I have to say however, at this point with seeing Lowry start the last few games that I am able to comfortably project how Lowry will play as a starter and I would prefer that player to what Brooks gives us. The way the league is today, I am willing to concede that the defense we get from Brooks/Martin as a tandem will not win a championship. Last night, when Lowry/Lee/Battier was on the floor I felt good about our defense. Even if the threesome were alongside the disgustingly bad duo of Miller and Scola. And we forced the Bulls to miss shots only to have the Bulls get the offensive rebound (which IMO is the biggest problem with our team late in games.) Lowry has been able to utilize the pick and roll late in the game to get shots within the offense. These skills Lowry once demonstrated as a sparkplug have now been demonstrated in a decent sample size of games as a starter. Especially if you disregard the games early in the season where he was not healthy. And as long as he is just shooting open three pointers, I don't think he will be a terrible liability. He is really doing a good job of setting players up, and at this point I am willing to say he blows AB away at that. I don't think we have the time in this season left to really risk another chemistry experiment. The D the first few games that Yao and AB come back will be atrocious if RA just plops them in the starting lineup. I didn't mind the loss last night because there was a time in that game we were down by 12 and I said to myself, if we are a good team, we will fight for this game. But I did not at all, expect that to happen. And then it did. There was a play last night I remember that the Bulls turned it over and in the corner of the screen you see Lowry sprinting over to get the ball (which had bounced out of bounds) to inbound it to try to get it in and suprise Chicago. And thats what I see in Lowry is game management and drive. He may not drill multiple three pointers a game but he sure is setting up a lot of quality attempts. Maybe AB makes two free throws late in the game last night, or even gets a big shot in or and the end of OT. But does Brooks really even get this team into an OT against the Bulls....? I don't at all dislike Brooks, but my opinion has shifted. We need to be a good defensive team and in this offense we need to get players like Scola, Martin the ball. And get other role players quality shots. I think you can look at Lowry as a starter and know what kind of play your going to get. As well he compliments Martin well. I used to think that Lowry/Martin/Battier was actually not a good grouping, but I have warmed to it. I am just wondering is anyone else has altered their opinion on this recently? As well, if we trade AB I full believe we need to get a stronger 2 way SF to go along with the combo of Lowry/Martin
If AB is the starter, we need a new SG. If Kevin Martin is the starter, we need a bigger defensive PG. Brooks or Martin?
I have noticed that Lowry does a lot of little things as well. He has the great assist numbers, but he provides a lot of value beyond the box score.
You can't teach hustle. Lowry made some great hustle plays that gave us important second opportunities. Lowry gives his all out every game, and he has more than proven himself a capable starter.
I've never been satisfied with the Brooks/Martin backcourt. You can't be a contender with two strong scorers. They are one-dimensional and undersized. Here are successful teams' backcourts: - Celtics: Rondo/Allen (passer/scorer) - Spurs: Parker/Ginobili (hybrid/hybrid) - Suns: Nash/Richardson (passer/scorer) - Mavs: Kidd/Terry (passer/scorer) - Hornets: Paul/Bellineli (passer/scorer) - Lakers: Fisher/Bryant (passer*/scorer) - Magic: Nelson/Carter-Redick (passer/scorer) The only exception I can think of at this time is the Heat. They have a distributor but at the SF position (Lebron). Hence, a Lowry/Martin combo is better in terms of efficiency than Brooks/Martin. If you unleash brooks as a SG and had say Billups as a PG, then you could get somewhere. Brooks is NOT a PG.
I am surprised how good Lowry is running the high pick and roll. I want to see this over a bigger sample size against quality defensive opponents but notice that in crunch time over the last few games, we've basically put the ball in Lowry's hands at the end of games and done a high P'n'R with a big. He's generated pretty good quality shots from it.
With Brooks, Martin and Budinger you ought to feel good about our offense. What do the two have in common? A) One-way players As the OP stated, we need two-way players. People like to mention Detroit, but they had much better balance, and their most one-way player was elite at it. On the thread title: Lowry is not going to be our savior!!!! I am very comfortable with him but he is not going to be the difference maker. We need something more profound.
I was pretty ambivalent about the Brooks/Lowry starter debate, but have come to believe AB is best suited, on this team, to come off the bench as 6th man. With Martin in the backcourt, you need a one who can defend and distribute the ball, and Lowry does that. Kyle still has a ways to go, however. Like last night, when he took far too many shots. Lowry was 5-17. 17 shots! That's crazy. Sure, it was probably due to being on fire the last game, but he needs to stick with his role. Aaron simply doesn't cover the other team's point well enough. With Martin and Scola's scoring in the starting unit, we can live with him coming off the bench with Lee, who's slowly getting used to playing here, and is steadily improving as a result. He would make a fantastic combo with AB with on bench brigade. Man, I don't know what's happened to Chase. Maybe he needs a stint with the Vipers to clear his head. Can we do that? The guy needs some sort of cold bucket of water!
How about we hold our Brooks/Martin wont work decisions until it is actually used the way it was intended, alongside Yao?
thats because lowry can actually pass. Brooks either can't or is unwilling to pass once he comes off that pick.
So who is making that entry pass to Yao to initiate the offense? I don't trust Brooks, so Battier maybe? He has been doing better in the high post lately though.
That's a good offensive plan, but a horrible defensive one. Opposing wings would simply attack the basket and force Yao into early foul trouble.
The thing with this dilemma is that AB's value is at it max when he plays alongside Martin and Yao. AB and Martin can truly be a dynamic duo on offense, and he is much more fitter to play with Yao than with the second unit because he is a tailor-made half court player. As constructed, this roster's offense is in all cylinders with Brooks, Martin and Yao playing together, not just because of their individual talent but because of the potential of how well they can mesh together.
"Brooks/Martin won't work" is one argument, that can be held off until Yao is back. The better one is the "Lowry is the better basketball player" argument. Better at scoring? No. Better at winning? Yeah. Since the object of the game is still to win, I would prefer the guy who consistently makes winning plays. This is not in any way to say we should get rid of Brooks. I think he would excel in a scoring role off the bench, and as a closer in tight games. However Lowry is needed the rest of the time for us to be in tight games to begin with.
Clever. I enjoyed how you professed to originally be a Brooks supporter to bolster your credibility. Equally impressive is the reference to a "new wave" of Lowry supporters that just happens to be comprised primarily of you.
Yeah good call. Not sure about a "new" wave of Lowry supporters. Plenty of knowledgeable fans have been riding that train for awhile now. EDIT: However, obviously all of this is inconclusive either way until we can get our hands on some pie charts.
