RealGM

When AB went down, I was pissed because well we can't get away from the injury bug. However I was excited to see Lowry get a real oppurtunity to show what he's got. He has played exceptionally well.

(NBA.com doesn't list turnovers in season splits?)

36.6 MPG
11.8 PPG
8.0 APG
4.2 RPG
2.4 SPG

45.7% from the field
42.9% from 3 (15-35)

If you are going to limit Yao's minutes throughout the game. Wouldn't it be wise to have a defensive distributing PG to start the game? We have enough offense with Martin, Scola, & Yao. You cannot continue to start AB & Martin as both players are terrible defensively.

MAKE AB the 6th man! We lack a consistent scoring punch of the bench ever since we traded Carl.

What are your thoughts?

he is the best guy on the team for the 6th man role. i wouldnt mind, our bench has been terribly inconsistent, we dont even know if bud/lee get their shot back, mainly bud. brooks off the bench almost always guarantees scoring from the bench. and lowry is making a strong case for the starting pg. i think he should start off the bench when he gets back, and then decide who starts pg.

It works for Jason Terry.

It would be intersting to see, but I doubt it will happen.

before when people was saying brooks is better coming off the bench, i would argue... but after seeing lowry start i don't see how you can put this guy back on the bench.

1. he is a better traditional point guard. he gets his teammates involved, he run the offense very well and find the open man. he puts his teammates into their comfort zone, comfortable situations where they can make plays.

2. he is a far better defender, man to man and stealing the ball. lowry is one of the better defenders at the point guard position.

3. he can score the basketball. he know how to run an offense in the sense that he knows when to create and he knows when to look for his shot. and know he is shooting the 3 ball at 40%. it was once his weakness, now he is solid.

i do not see how you can put lowry on the bench and im going to admit, i was for brooks starting but now brooks is going to have to outplay lowry to start. and i don't mean just scoring points, we all know brooks is the better scorer but unless he can outplay lowry at the point guard position, brooks should come off the bench. i think brooks will do great coming off the bench. who in the bench can really put up points? chase and lee is good for about 8 a game each, once in a while they might get 15+. miller is a solid veteran big man, once in a while he will go off. but having brooks come off the bench gives you instant scoring threat off the bench every night. and i think he will be more comfortable. off the bench, he only has to focus on one thing and thats doing what he does best, putting the ball in the hoop

EDIT: all we need now is a defensive force on the paint and it would look like a legit rotation.

Lowry/Brooks
Martin/Lee
Battier/Bud
Scola/Hill
X/Miller/Hayes/Yao

Should he? I'm in favor of it.


Will he? No.

Yes! If not him, let Martin come off the bench and get starters minutes. One of them has to for this team to be successful.

Guy986 wrote:Should he? I'm in favor of it.


Will he? No.

+1. Brooks role would fit well in the 6th man mold, but I'm not sure the chances of that happening are likely.

Lowry/Martin and Brooks/Lee, these should be the combos. totally agree.

I am all for Brooks coming off the bench...in Sacramento or Philadelphia.

kam_soluusar wrote:It works for Jason Terry.

It would be intersting to see, but I doubt it will happen.

+1

No

LarsV8 wrote:No

Your in-depth analysis is astounding. Thanks for your contributions, kind sir.

He really should. Especially since our second unit seems to flounder on offense and he compliments them better than Lowry.

According to realgm Aaron Brooks is a starter so I guess you're answer is no.

roxfashoballin wrote:

LarsV8 wrote:No

Your in-depth analysis is astounding. Thanks for your contributions, kind sir.

Well he answered the question... anyways I think the idea of starting/not starting is bunch of hogwash... we should play whoever will play better against each respective opponent...

If brooks comes back, starts, and the 1st string does bad for a couple of games, I wouldn't be surprised if Adelman starts lowry for the rest of the season. Adelman is trying to win games and who the hell is Aaron brooks? Adelman wouldn't second guess a decision of bringing AB off the bench.

You have to think too. Is the team doing better bc AB is hurt and lowry is starting. Or is it bc Miller is starting for an injured Yao?......

I think the Miller factor is probably influencing our style of play just as much as starting lowry.

roxfashoballin wrote:Your in-depth analysis is astounding. Thanks for your contributions, kind sir.

Truth be told, most people don't really understand basketball sets and what they are looking at. They get stuck in the most basic principles like a PG should create the offense and a center should be tall and refuse to recogonize our system is far far far from the norm. So apologies for simply saying no. The problem is, people form opinions, such as "Brooks should be a scoring punch off the bench like Jason Terry!", it gets stuck in thier head and they never are able to see all the subtle intricacies of how our offense works.

Our offense runs through the high post initiated 3 man games which is best executed when the 2 wing players have excellent three point shooting as well as quickness to cut to the baskets alongside a big who can hit a mid range jump shot. For reference, the a Bosh/Brooks/Martin 3 man game would be nearly unstopable, which is why they wanted him so badly. Conversely, Amare, who is probably just as good or better than Bosh, has a different skill set that does not fit the high post system, hence the little interest.

Adelman/Morey have spent years assembling players to fit the high post princeton offense. You will notice, that despite Lowry averaging way more assists than Brooks, team assists are relatively the same between the two starters, meaning we arent really losing shot creation by using Brooks instead of Lowry, because the system is more than adequete for creating quality shots, which is Lowry's primary strength.

Furthermore there is a noticable decrease in effeciency by Lowry when he plays more minutes vs less minutes. His game slows down and he gets to the line less, which is bad. Simply put...Yao and Battier arent meant to run fastbreaks. He is better playing 20 minutes @ 120% speed with runners/finishers, instead of 35 minutes @ 90%. Sure his raw stats go up starting, but most notably his assist/TO ratio goes down. He is better off playing less minutes with the bench crew who have no one who can create for themselves (Lee, Bud, Hayes, Miller) but can all finish really well.

His sole strength to the starting lineup is defense, but I am not prepared to break up the synergy of both groups for more defense at the 1.

Lowry's inability to consistantly hit a jump shot and outside shot will criple this team during the playoffs and against any great defensive teams. This is why he all but dissapeared in the playoffs while Brooks played much much better.

So no, Brooks should start and play along side Battier/Yao. Lowry should head up the running/finishing crew off the bench where his strengths are best utilized.

LarsV8 wrote:

roxfashoballin wrote:Your in-depth analysis is astounding. Thanks for your contributions, kind sir.

Truth be told, most people don't really understand basketball sets and what they are looking at. They get stuck in the most basic principles like a PG should create the offense and a center should be tall and refuse to recogonize our system is far far far from the norm. So apologies for simply saying no. The problem is, people form opinions, such as "Brooks should be a scoring punch off the bench like Jason Terry!", it gets stuck in thier head and they never are able to see all the subtle intricacies of how our offense works.

Our offense runs through the high post initiated 3 man games which is best executed when the 2 wing players have excellent three point shooting as well as quickness to cut to the baskets alongside a big who can hit a mid range jump shot. For reference, the a Bosh/Brooks/Martin 3 man game would be nearly unstopable, which is why they wanted him so badly. Conversely, Amare, who is probably just as good or better than Bosh, has a different skill set that does not fit the high post system, hence the little interest.

Adelman/Morey have spent years assembling players to fit the high post princeton offense. You will notice, that despite Lowry averaging way more assists than Brooks, team assists are relatively the same between the two starters, meaning we arent really losing shot creation by using Brooks instead of Lowry, because the system is more than adequete for creating quality shots, which is Lowry's primary strength.

Furthermore there is a noticable decrease in effeciency by Lowry when he plays more minutes vs less minutes. His game slows down and he gets to the line less, which is bad. Simply put...Yao and Battier arent meant to run fastbreaks. He is better playing 20 minutes @ 120% speed with runners/finishers, instead of 35 minutes @ 90%. Sure his raw stats go up starting, but most notably his assist/TO ratio goes down. He is better off playing less minutes with the bench crew who have no one who can create for themselves (Lee, Bud, Hayes, Miller) but can all finish really well.

His sole strength to the starting lineup is defense, but I am not prepared to break up the synergy of both groups for more defense at the 1.

Lowry's inability to consistantly hit a jump shot and outside shot will criple this team during the playoffs and against any great defensive teams. This is why he all but dissapeared in the playoffs while Brooks played much much better.

So no, Brooks should start and play along side Battier/Yao. Lowry should head up the running/finishing crew off the bench where his strengths are best utilized.

didndt read but i was being sarcastic, green font post. i hope ur reply wasnt cuz of wat i said cuz it's a really really long post lol

Read the post. It's pretty good, and it sucks when you write that much and get responses of "ew, that's too long, reading sucks".