Would you want to compete with about 2% chance of winning a championship?

See, I think they do have an Alpha dog, and his name is Aaron Brooks.

DD

 

name the alpha dogs in the league...because you said in another thread once that Bosh wan't one...

soooo...

Kobe
LeBron
Wade

who else???

and Aaron Brooks?

really?

you don't believe that. you want to believe that. but you know better than that.

 

Wait, now you are mixing up the arguments.

You are comparing superstars to alpha dogs.

I am saying Brooks is the team leader, but he is NOT a superstar player.

He is the main man on this team.....the Rocket's alpha dog.

Now cue the personal insults from people who don't understand the difference....

DD

 

ok...my bad....i equate alpha dogs and superstars.

 

I guess that makes sense, if you are looking league wide.

I think every team has it's own Alpha dog, but that person may not be a league alpha dog.

I think there are only a few of those......

And sometimes if your team is better, you can beat a leagues alpha dog's team with better overall team play.

Does that make sense, or does your head hurt like mine did after typing it?

DD

 

here's why i'm confused:

I said they need an alpha dog to be a true champ contender...you said they have one in Brooks.

And then went on to say every team has an alpha dog.

So every team is a true champ contender by that analysis.

See why I'm confused?

 

Not really, to me it makes perfect sense, every team has a leader, an alpha dog.

Brooks is that guy.

But the way I look at contender status is not based upon who has the best player, but who has the team with the best parts and which team is the best overall.

So, I think Brooks is our alpha dog, our best player, and he has tons of help, good solid efficient players on the team to play with.

Which makes the overall team maybe better than a team with a LEAGUE alpha dog.

I don't think having a great player means you will necessarily be a contender, nor do I think NOT having a great player means you will not be one.....either.

I would love to have a great player and surround him with this team....I would trade Brooks and Battier for Melo so fast it would make your head spin.....

But, this Rocket team is better than that Nuggets team with Melo....with a healthy Yao.

Here is how I see the Rockets team in a 1-10 ranking with 10 being the best skill wise.

AB = 8
Martin = 8
Yao = 9
Scola = 7
Ariza = 6
-----------------------
38 points

Compared to the Nuggets

Billups - 8
Aflalo - 4
Melo - 10
Martin - 6
Nene - 6
-------------------
34 points

I hope this helps....but probably just confuses things more.....

DD

 

it confuses things to the extent i said..

"this team needs an alpha dog to be a championship contender"

and you responded saying Aaron Brooks was an alpha dog...and then said every team had an alpha dog, because he's the team's best player

unless you believe every team in the league is a championship contender...

 

I think what he's saying is every team has an alpha dog but they don't have a team like our alpha dog.

 

No, I believe every team has an alpha dog, and our team has enough components around ours to lift the entire team up to championship contention.

DD

 

this
because if we say: championship or rebuild
we'll rebuild for centuries :grin: :grin:

 

ok...color me shocked if any NBA champion ever counts Aaron Brooks as its best player.

i'd love it. he's probably my favorite player on the roster, because i was a big fan of his when he was at Oregon.

 

Cool.

DD

 

Don't stop competing. Just hold to that feeling.

 

Pistons 02, Spurs 99, Rockets 93

All 3 teams were either relatively unknown or weren't picked to win the championship before the season, and went on to win their championships that year. We have a lot of young talent, so it is not like we are risking everything for a title run, but we aren't also in rebuild mode. The question here is a matter of opinion, but a solid argument we might be hurting ourselves bad by being "luke warm".

Anyways, I am going with no, we don't need to rebuild and here is why.


Steve Nash and Kobe Bryant were great basktetball players growing up, but it wasn't guaranteed they would be all stars, or win 3 MVPs or 5 NBA titles. My point is just because we don't have big name all stars on our team, doesnt mean they cannot become big name all stars over time. We have a lot of young improven guys with upside, lets give them a chance to show their upside. This is why I was happy with us not getting Bosh. Yea Bosh is a solid player, but he couldn't lead the raptors to the playoffs? And say we trade away Patterson for bosh. What if Patterson turns into the next Karl Malone. I know that is a stretch, but at some point in time someone said, what if Olajuwon is as dominant on defense as bill russel? Or what if Michael could score like Larry? Or what if Chris Paul at times could resemble Magic? So playing the what if game isn't always a bad thing, because playing the what if game is just measuring potential.

I look at our team and see a lot more upside than I do downside. Aaron Brooks isn't about to hit old age and get injured easily or have to retire, Ariza isn't considering retirement, and Budinger hasn't hit his prime. Let's see what these guys got.

Maybe Budinger is the next Larry Bird, Aaron Brooks the next Allen Iverson, and Trevor Ariza turns into a Scottie Pippen, and Yao stays healthy and dominates. I would love our chances against the Heat.

 

93 Rockets?

the 94 Rockets won a championship. they weren't unknown. they were among the favorites to win the ring. they had won 55 games and the division title the year before. they had the best player in the game.

i don't know why it bothers me so much that people forget how good we were in 1993.

 

Is there really a difference between rebuilding and adding a few missing pieces?

 

Because while the team was good, it was not one of the favorites, that is what I recall.

Everyone said we could not get by Seattle, and while we had Dream and OT, we had question marks at the PG spot, we had a crazy man at the SG spot, we had a SF that wouldn't shoot, and we just traded for a guy from Portland that Les said was our big splash moment.

I just have a very different view of that team from the jump, I had nearly the same feeling about that team as I do about this one.....I had HOPE.....

That is my comparison....

DD

 

i wish we could get a link to odds at that time. i looked, but can't find them.

i have a hard time believing that the Rockets coming off the 1993 season weren't pretty high up Vegas' odds list heading into 1993/94.

but i don't know how any of you can say, "came out of nowhere" or something like that. this wasn't a worst to first situation. it was first to first. we only won 3 more games during the regular season in 1994 than we won in 1993.

and remember...the game in SA..the last game of the 93 season where we got screwed down the stretch...we should have had homecourt against the Sonics.

i went to the Summit to watch Game 7 vs. the Sonics...they showed it on TV screens there. i walked out disappointed, but told my friends: "we're going to win the title next year." we were THAT good and it was ridiculous how dominant Hakeem was.