I would like to keep both too. The biggest problems are this though: - This is AB's contract year and he will want to make at least what Lowry does (that is at least $5 million for however many years). I cannot imagine Morey keeping that much tied up in any one position that is not a superstar. - Lowry has shown he is a team player and has stated publicly that he will give his all in whatever role he is asked of, while AB has shown he can "lose it" at times when things don't go his way. So, if AB expresses discontent for either not getting an extension or if he is demoted to the bench, I wonder who the FO will trade? - If Lowry improves as a shooter who can make them at a respectable rate (between 0.33-5), one would be hard pressed to come up with an intelligent answer of why a more complete player is backing up such an one dimensional one. - Morey is always trying to get that superstar he is ultimately looking for. This means we have to give up a valued commodity in return. As a GM would you give up a much more efficient scorer who consistently gets to the line every game for or an undersized 3pt shooter on contract year? I would be quicker to try to include AB in a deal before Scola or Martin. Obviously we differ on who should start and that's fine. We can both agree that it would be awesome to keep both. The problem is, AB is going to want a lot of money and I cannot see DM tying that much in a single position. If we do get a superstar, it would be through trade and AB is very valuable trade bait.
If you paid attention,Rockets starts had a negative +/- even at the early part when the team was winning. 2nd unit beat other teams 2nd units consistently, not 1st unit. That was even before we had the weakest defensive back court. 30 minutes of AB might be fine, but 30 minutes for AB/Martin together will be too much to overcome in a long run.
Ish has the best pure passing skills, but he hasn't yet proven to be a better distributor than Lowry. We've seen what happens when we assume a player will develop steadily (Budinger), so I'll wait for Ish to develop more before saying he's comparable to Lowry. Ish's defense is comparable to Brooks' (bad), not Lowrys. Lowry is clearly the best defensive PG on the team. Lowry is also the best rebounding PG on the team. The only skill set of Lowrys that Ish covers is Lowry's penchant to push the ball.
You still don't get it. I guess that's what a typical sucker do,never can see the big picture and never understands the main point. Rockets couldn't win not because we are worse offensively with AB, but because we don't have consistent defense with AB/Martin back court. It doesn't make much sense to compare AB and Parker's number at this moment. Parker doesn't pair with another weak defender like Martin. One of the AB/Martin needs to come off the bench to make the team balanced enough to win consistently. No matter how you slice it, Martin is the more efficient scorer. It's always better to give efficient scorers more shots. It's different at game ending situation when creating own shots becomse more importatnt. I don't mind seeing Marting starts the game and AB finishes it.
Unnecessary to discuss this. Given by Lowry's injury's history, it is impossible for him to keep his health for the whole season. When he gets injured, AB will be the starting pg again.
All that proves is that Rockets 2nd unit > opponents 2nd unit. That was not some closely guarded secret. It was a reason the team was doing as well as they were before injuries got em.
I dunno, I think his second injury was caused by trying to come back too soon from his first. Back injuries generally are the result of the rest of the body trying to overcompensate for something. Though if it becomes chronic that would be cause for concern. No reason to believe so yet.
Individually, Brooks and Martin are poor defenders. Do you think that if they play alongside each other, their collective defensive abilities will multiply? It sounds like you have them confused with the Wonder Twins. It may not be a "fact" in the sense that it can be definitively proven, but it's a statement on par with statements such as "Jordan is the GOAT." There are far more arguments supporting than refuting it. For all intents and purposes, it's true.
First one your bolded is inarguable. Second one you bolded isn't being touted as fact. You guys just disagree on what the team should be doing with their starting backcourt.
That also proves AB as the starting PG may not be better than Lowry as the starting PG. With this season's results, the opposite side might just be true. Should at least give a try for Lowry starting and AB coming off the bench.
The first one is not assumption anymore. It has been proven again and again since 2nd half last season. What evidence do you have to say that's not a fact anymore? 2nd one is based on the first fact and how the team played so far this season. It's a resonable deduction, not just a pure assumption like you have done so many times, even against all the facts.
Well Kyle Lowry's performance after claiming the starting gig was his to lose.... 2-12 FG, 8 points, 3 rebounds, 2 assists, and a team leading -16 +/- Little bit of humble pie yes (hopefully this sends the Lowry brigade into a frenzy)
I didn't realize you were speaking on behalf of the ClutchFans community. Get a clue, and maybe posters will respect your opinion.
