From the first 5 games, Brooks starting with Lowry backing him up resulted 0 wins. The biggest problem is not offense, which I think we'd be fine with Brooks/Martin, but DEFENSE. We let opponents score more than us with AB/Martin back court. Lowry/Martin makes the team more balanced at back court with both offense and some defense instead of no defense at all.
Yes but I think the last several post was caused by saying AB had more trade value. Which is true, hence why Lowry may start eventually. They all but abandoned Ish for Lee as the backup (who can shoot just as good as AB) and play defense.
That part I agree. Two different styles is better than one. Depending on different nights, different matchups, it will be useful. Lowry and Ish both have the same weakness at shooting, in some situation that won't work.
I don't give a flying **** anymore about who you guys think should start, or whom I think should start. Rick Adelman and Daryl Morey will answer that question for us when AB is healthy. I just know that whomever starts, the Rockets need them BOTH to be successful. I miss watching them play together a lot. DD
This is why its impossible to have a meaningul discussion with you. I am sure you believe that Brooks played with Lowry backing him up for the first five games and that setup led to losses. I am certain your Lowry first mindset has created this reality to support your made up mind. It did not happen like that.
I feel the need to reply to this holy wall of text because you have obviously put in the effort, even though most of the points have been addressed by others. So I will just summarize. You are commenting on "Adelman's offense" solely based on his years in Sacromento, with 0 knowledge of his prior years. Really we should just end it here, but just for arguments sake, let's address some of your other points. You ask which of our PGs is more like Bibby and which like White Chocolate. Your point is that somehow Lowry is the flashy one like JWilliams, while AB is the shooter like Bibby. If that is the case then you are truly ignorant to "what is in front of you". Bibby is the epitome of the steady, run your offense PG. Think a mix of Billups and a rich mans Fisher. One of Brooks's biggest flaws(and strengths) is how he stagnates the offense by isoing far too often. This is half the reason why he should be coming off the bench, to turn that flaw into a strength. The other half being his defense. Meanwhile "White Chocolate" is far from a great example of a pass first PG. What he is is high risk high reward. And a lot of flash. Are you honestly comparing Lowry to THAT? If anything, Brooks is the far more flashy(as opposed to substance) one in regards to his scoring. Just because he is the better shooter does not make him Bibby. Not even close. As far as Lowry not fitting in with what Adelman wants, maybe you should look up what Terry Porter did for the Adelman Trailblazers. As for why they didn't trade Ariza for Collison if they wanted a ball dominating PG, and using that as proof to why we don't want a ball dominating PG. Maybe already signing a "ball dominating" PG like Lowry to a starter's contract had something to do with that. This is all probably too "right in front of you" to see, so I don't blame you.
They game plan for Brooks because Brooks will take the shot the majority of the time. They game plan for Brooks because a game plan to contain isos and one man drives is much easier to come up with. And stop. No team game plans for Lowry because when Lowry is in the game, they have to game plan for Scola, for Martin, for Brad freakin Miller. They have to game plan for the ROCKETS. Because Lowry runs this TEAM. You know why they trap Brooks at the hash or tilt the defense towards him? Because that is how you stop him. You know why they don't do that to Lowry? Because if they did, the rest of the TEAM would burn them when Lowry gets them the ball.
I am perfectly willing to concede I am incorrect if Brooks is traded and Lowry becomes the long term starting PG for the Rockets. Are you willing to do so if it doesnt happen, or will we be overrun with "Adelman is stupid, etc. threads" ?
It seems you can't have "meaningful discussion" with a lot fans. You might want to look at mirror first. Your pre-determind mind prevent you from looking at the big picture, or even the fact. I'm just saying there is no data to prove that AB starting with Martin has ever made Rockets a winning team when the guy said AB staring with Lowry backing up had succesess. Rockets had some success early last season with AB staring and Lowry backing up. It was necessary because we didn't have scorers in starting lineup besides Scola, and we didn't have a weak defender like Martin to pair with AB. Even in that case, It was the 2nd unit gaining the ground for Rockets. Lowry made bigger impact. Ever since the trade of Martin, our starting unit had never been able to defend worth a damn with Martin/AB together. The result? We lost way more games than won. The whold argument I have is not getting rid of AB, but to find out which paire is better suited to win more games for Rockets. So far, I see Martin/Lowry pair is better than Marin/Ab pair, because it provides more dimensions to the unit, instead of scoring only.
It's funny he called me "create reality" when I merely stated a fact: Rockets lost all 5 games at the beginning of the season because of defense, yet at the same time he creates word for you.
Semantics Say, if its Lowry starting and Brooks off the bench. They assembled this team to play with Yao. The whole group is assembled to play off Yao. You want to make personell decision based on Hayes or whomever as the starter. That is the flaw in your thinking.
At the beginning of the season, it didn't look good even with Yao in the middle. Granted, the sample size is small, but that won't change the fact that Lowry has a lot dimension in his game to offer than AB, and Rockets will need more dimensions even with Yao there. Yao/Scola/Martin will give Rockets stalbe offense, but Scola/Martin/AB won't give Rockets stable defense. It's not hard to see that. Brad Miller is a better player than Hayes, yet RA moved Hayes to starting lineup so the 1st unit can have some much needed defense, and 2nd unit can half some much needed offense. The result is staring to show. So why is it so hard to see same thing could happen with AB/Loary situation?
Okay I agree. Once Yao gets back, lets move Scola to the bench and Hayes into the starting lineup. Your supposed concern over defense would be addressed. Hayes can play the high post offense and we still get our shooters. Scola can play isolation and give that scoring punch off the bench just like you guys wanted. A simple compromise, as you can note in my sig, I have suggested this whole time. But I am sure thats not good enough for the Lowry brigade, is it? Probably because its not about defense, its about an agenda.
And where do rebounds come from? A lineup of Brooks/Martin/Battier/Hayes/Yao would have problems securing rebounds. Yes...and the agenda is "winning".
I'm not against Yao/Hayes. Back in the old days that combo worked well even when Rafer was the PG. But the problem is you need defense inside AND outside. Hayes/Yao won't solve outside problem that much. If anyone is holding an agenda, it's probably you. Just look at your biased comments toward Yao, Battier and Lowry.
Youre pe and ts doesn't account for shot clock plays at the end and per doesn't do that either. Per doesn't have eyeballs that tells when the defense is trapping to get the ball out of one players hands and sag off another. This whole bs about shoot first can be smashed by looking at brooks last year and this year. You so called effeciency as well too. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01.html http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/brookaa01.html Brooks and Parker are taking the same amount of shot this year. Want to guess what is parkers v brooks numbers? I provided the links for you, but here are the raw,unadulterrated data you so claim are so important. Brooks- ts% .560 efg .515 fga 13.4 ppg 16.4 Parker- ts% .562 efg .519 fga 13.4 ppg 17.0 So I guess parker is pass first and brooks is not and that why the rockets can't win. I always say stats are for suckers, but sometimes thats all a sucker can understand.
Shooting 40% does not make you a staring PG; but a starting PG must be able to shoot at least 40% unless he has the extroadinary passing abilities of a Jason Kidd or a Rondo. Kyle is barely shooting 40% -- he simply is not very good at shooting the ball and his other skills are only comparable to the lower echelon to average of NBA starting PGs. Simply put, Kyle Lowry is not starting PG material if you want to contend for the playoffs. That's why I'm afraid we are going regret the contract we handed him down the road. I don't think that Aaron is an ideal starter for a playoffs team either, but he's better than Kyle with his overall skills and he does have one skill that belongs in the upper echolon of NBA PGs -- speed.
