Anyone NOT concerned with all this talk from King of how Lopez will slide to PF if/when we sign a C? How King talks about Brook's jumpers as almost in three-point range?
I thought the idea was to bring this guy closer to the basket, where he possesses rare skill in today's game, as opposed to turning him into what his detractors say he is: a Bargnani without the athleticism and three-point shot.
Brook at PF
Moderators: Rich Rane, NyCeEvO
Brook at PF
- SpeedyG
- RealGM
- Posts: 15,501
- And1: 1,310
- Joined: Mar 07, 2003
Brook at PF
Bless the man if his heart and his land are one ~ FrancisM, R.I.P. 3/6/09
Re: Brook at PF
-
- Ballboy
- Posts: 1
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jan 26, 2010
Re: Brook at PF
I agree.
But I think we are quietly shopping Lopez. Sliding him over to PF makes no sense at all, and King said they're looking to make trades as well as sign FA's. I can't really think who we can trade other then Brooke
But I think we are quietly shopping Lopez. Sliding him over to PF makes no sense at all, and King said they're looking to make trades as well as sign FA's. I can't really think who we can trade other then Brooke
Re: Brook at PF
- 624
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,603
- And1: 277
- Joined: Sep 25, 2010
Re: Brook at PF
I don't like it, especially on D.
Re: Brook at PF
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 14,220
- And1: 5,763
- Joined: Mar 25, 2011
-
Re: Brook at PF
Agreed, I would hate to see him being turned into a shooter. I thought we already tried that last season and failed? The guy's best threat on offense is his low post game, why do Nets keep insisting on driving him away from the basket?
Re: Brook at PF
- NyCeEvO
- Forum Mod - Nets
- Posts: 22,057
- And1: 6,082
- Joined: Jul 14, 2010
Re: Brook at PF
deeznets wrote:I agree.
But I think we are quietly shopping Lopez. Sliding him over to PF makes no sense at all, and King said they're looking to make trades as well as sign FA's. I can't really think who we can trade other then Brooke
I would like to think this is the case, but then again if we trade for someone with a contract much larger than Lopez's contract, we won't have any room for D12 in the future.
Btw, why did it take almost 2 years for you to make your first post lol? Just wondering.
Re: Brook at PF
- JoseRizal
- General Manager
- Posts: 7,973
- And1: 2,279
- Joined: Oct 21, 2010
-
Re: Brook at PF
NyCeEvO wrote:deeznets wrote:I agree.
But I think we are quietly shopping Lopez. Sliding him over to PF makes no sense at all, and King said they're looking to make trades as well as sign FA's. I can't really think who we can trade other then Brooke
I would like to think this is the case, but then again if we trade for someone with a contract much larger than Lopez's contract, we won't have any room for D12 in the future.
That's why this FA period is crucial...
NyCeEvO wrote:Btw, why did it take almost 2 years for you to make your first post lol? Just wondering.
He just remembered the password?

Re: Brook at PF
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 699
- And1: 0
- Joined: Nov 19, 2011
Re: Brook at PF
I wouldn't move Brook to PF, Chandler spent quite a bit of time at PF while in Chicago and Nene can fit in at PF no problem (well maybe a slight problem at first as he seems to have widened up a bit since starting to play center full-time)...
Re: Brook at PF
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 16,907
- And1: 1,574
- Joined: Jun 19, 2007
-
Re: Brook at PF
^
I'm not really concerned with labels. If we get Nene, he'll guard PFs and act as the C on offense, as he is the quicker defender of the two. Brook will be the high-post bigman in our system, and the low-post man defender in the middle, which really does suit him well. Think more Pau, less Bargs.
I'm more concerned with the lack of help defense that our bigs will be able to provide. Teams like San Antonio, Boston and Los Angeles have historically gotten away with the Twin Towers effect, because they have a good enough perimeter defense not to need much weakside lateral quickness from their bigs. We would need to hit a home run in FA and land one or two lockdown wing defenders to put my mind at ease that our wings won't play matador defense, since our PF/C rotation won't be able to stop them.
I'm not really concerned with labels. If we get Nene, he'll guard PFs and act as the C on offense, as he is the quicker defender of the two. Brook will be the high-post bigman in our system, and the low-post man defender in the middle, which really does suit him well. Think more Pau, less Bargs.
I'm more concerned with the lack of help defense that our bigs will be able to provide. Teams like San Antonio, Boston and Los Angeles have historically gotten away with the Twin Towers effect, because they have a good enough perimeter defense not to need much weakside lateral quickness from their bigs. We would need to hit a home run in FA and land one or two lockdown wing defenders to put my mind at ease that our wings won't play matador defense, since our PF/C rotation won't be able to stop them.
Some people really have a way with words. Other people... not... have... way.
-- Steve Martin
-- Steve Martin
Re: Brook at PF
- Dexmor
- Head Coach
- Posts: 7,002
- And1: 39
- Joined: Jan 26, 2007
Re: Brook at PF
Hes getting traded if they get chandler but unless they get somebody greattradinf brook will be a mistake. Did king just mean pf on offense cause he cang be serious as brook as a 4. Thats crazy defensively with avery there no way.
Re: Brook at PF
- Dexmor
- Head Coach
- Posts: 7,002
- And1: 39
- Joined: Jan 26, 2007
Re: Brook at PF
Hes getting traded if they get chandler but unless they get somebody greattradinf brook will be a mistake. Did king just mean pf on offense cause he cang be serious as brook as a 4. Thats crazy defensively with avery there no way.