2009 NBA Playoffs

[moon]

Originally Posted by StrayBullet

Possession after possession, Aaron Brooks has shown me that he is a shoot first, shoot second point guard on a team with Yao and Ron Artest. In spite of his speed, the Lakers don't need "help defense" on a guy like him - What for? Last night showed that when the Lakers are playing well and when Kobe is playing well, a team like Houston cannot play at that level. Brooks played almost the entire game and his speed racked up; 5-for-15 shooting, taking ill-advised long jumpers, an effective 2 assists and 13 points. Last nights game shows me that possession after possession, Aaron Brooks is not going to be Rick Adelman's answer to beating the Lakers.

I don't think that he is going to be the answer to beat the Lakers but considering who he has to go against I don't think he will have trouble putting up numbers. Even last night with a terrible night he put up 13 points.

[StrayBullet]

Originally Posted by moon

I don't think that he is going to be the answer to beat the Lakers but considering who he has to go against I don't think he will have trouble putting up numbers. Even last night with a terrible night he put up 13 points.

Uh, yea... His career scoring average is below 10. You're asking 6-foot, 24-year old with no real skill set, who's job is actually to make plays for Yao and distribute the ball, to score handily against the Lakers throughout the series. It just ain't happening and that was my original point. Regardles of how fast he is, Aaron Brooks just doesn't have it and again, there is no reason for him to take that many shots - 4 from long range and one lay-up from the right side, from what I remember. Poor efficiency, a bad nigh (Like you stated) and 13 points? Yea, you're right... He's good enough to outscore and handle the Lakers' back court for this series.

[moon]

Originally Posted by StrayBullet

Uh, yea... His career scoring average is below 10. You're asking 6-foot, 24-year old with no real skill set, who's job is actually to make plays for Yao and distribute the ball, to score handily against the Lakers throughout the series. It just ain't happening and that was my original point. Regardles of how fast he is, Aaron Brooks just doesn't have it and again, there is no reason for him to take that many shots - 4 from long range and one lay-up from the right side, from what I remember. Poor efficiency, a bad nigh (Like you stated) and 13 points? Yea, you're right... He's good enough to outscore and handle the Lakers' back court for this series.

As bad as he is he is still better than the guys is going against.

That no talent 6 foot chump has scored in double digits twice now against the vaunted Lakers and was a huge factor in the Rockets win.

You can dismiss him all you want but it doesn't matter how bad he is because he is going up against worse players when playing point guard against the Lakers.

[OILFAN #81]

Lebron is a MONSTER. Cavs crushed the Hawks to take a 2-0 series lead.

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

Lebron is a MONSTER. Cavs crushed the Hawks to take a 2-0 series lead.

Lebron get it!

[StrayBullet]

Originally Posted by moon

As bad as he is he is still better than the guys is going against.

That no talent 6 foot chump has scored in double digits twice now against the vaunted Lakers and was a huge factor in the Rockets win.

You can dismiss him all you want but it doesn't matter how bad he is because he is going up against worse players when playing point guard against the Lakers.

Aaron Brooks is not better than Derek Fisher. Are you even watching these games? He was horrid against Portland for the entire first round and he had one okay game, which was Game 1 of this series. Brooks was 7-14 from the field, including his 1-5 from the arc, 4-6 from the free throw line and committed 3 turnovers. Yes, they won, but the Lakers were awful that game. I can dismiss him all I want because you are clearly overrating him.
Scoring double digits means nothing when you are an ineffective point guard, sharing duties with two other PGs, have a garbage first round and play decent in one game against a sluggish team.

[moon]

Originally Posted by StrayBullet

Aaron Brooks is not better than Derek Fisher. Are you even watching these games? He was horrid against Portland for the entire first round and he had one okay game, which was Game 1 of this series. Brooks was 7-14 from the field, including his 1-5 from the arc, 4-6 from the free throw line and committed 3 turnovers. Yes, they won, but the Lakers were awful that game. I can dismiss him all I want because you are clearly overrating him.
Scoring double digits means nothing when you are an ineffective point guard, sharing duties with two other PGs, have a garbage first round and play decent in one game against a sluggish team.

He is better than this Derek Fisher (what is he 36-38 now?).

Scoring double digits means everything when the argument is that he can't put up those numbers every game against the Lakers.

[StrayBullet]

Originally Posted by moon

He is better than this Derek Fisher (what is he 36-38 now?).

Scoring double digits means everything when the argument is that he can't put up those numbers every game against the Lakers.

So because Derek Fisher is 34 years old, a younger point guard is better than him? I never knew that being a +30 athlete constitutes not being able to play sports. I guess according to your standards, players like, Grant Hill, Shaq, Michael Finley, etc. are useless, huh? If I think about it, in the 2 seasons Brooks has been in the league, I've never seen him hit a big shot. In fact, I've never seen him make a game winning play... A game winning pass or a defensive stop. The fact that I have to explain to you that Derek Fisher is a better player in his "old age" just exemplifies to me that you don't really watch basketball on a regular basis. I'm still unsure if you're actually confusing Aaron Brooks with Derrick Rose or Brandon Roy.
And "No", scoring double digits means nothing when they are garbage points. Fine, score 13 points on the Lakers... Score 13 on the Celtics, but what does it actually mean when you're a point guard that doesn't pass and when you take up to +15 shots, (mostly from the 3-point area) per game just to get "double-digit" points? A better point guard than a 34-year old? Sorry, but your argument just isn't flying.

[moon]

Originally Posted by StrayBullet

So because Derek Fisher is 34 years old, a younger point guard is better than him? I never knew that being a +30 athlete constitutes not being able to play sports. I guess according to your standards, players like, Grant Hill, Shaq, Michael Finley, etc. are useless, huh? If I think about it, in the 2 seasons Brooks has been in the league, I've never seen him hit a big shot. In fact, I've never seen him make a game winning play... A game winning pass or a defensive stop. The fact that I have to explain to you that Derek Fisher is a better player in his "old age" just exemplifies to me that you don't really watch basketball on a regular basis. I'm still unsure if you're actually confusing Aaron Brooks with Derrick Rose or Brandon Roy.

He is better than Fisher because he is better. Fisher's age comes into because he isn't the same player he was when he was first with the Lakers.

The fact that you don't understand that Derek Fisher is not a good player and have to make up argument that I didn't make shows me that whether you watch much basketball at all or not you don't know what you are talking about.

And "No", scoring double digits means nothing when they are garbage points. Fine, score 13 points on the Lakers... Score 13 on the Celtics, but what does it actually mean when you're a point guard that doesn't pass and when you take up to +15 shots, (mostly from the 3-point area) per game just to get "double-digit" points? A better point guard than a 34-year old? Sorry, man your argument isn't flying.

I was responding to you saying that Brooks wouldn't put up those numbers against the Lakers again. I am pointing out that yes he can because he is playing against bad PG's so it isn't difficult for him.

I don't car if he sucks, isn't efficient or makes 100 assists. The argument that Brooks wasn't going to put those points up again in the series and he clearly can.

I certainly don't think that he is going to be the guy to beat the Lakers but playing against Fisher, Farmar, and Brown he will be able to get points.

[StrayBullet]

Originally Posted by moon

He is better than Fisher because he is better. Fisher's age comes into because he isn't the same player he was when he was first with the Lakers.

The fact that you don't understand that Derek Fisher is not a good player and have to make up argument that I didn't make shows me that whether you watch much basketball at all or not you don't know what you are talking about.



I was responding to you saying that Brooks wouldn't put up those numbers against the Lakers again. I am pointing out that yes he can because he is playing against bad PG's so it isn't difficult for him.

I don't car if he sucks, isn't efficient or makes 100 assists. The argument that Brooks wasn't going to put those points up again in the series and he clearly can.

I certainly don't think that he is going to be the guy to beat the Lakers but playing against Fisher, Farmar, and Brown he will be able to get points.

Again, I'd like to respond with wondering how you think he's better. You stated that "He is better than Fisher" and in brackets, "What is he 36-38 now". What does age have to do with being better than Aaron Brooks? I gave examples of older players who were great, but are still better than good players now. I would rather have an aging vet with great leadership skills, who can still hit big shots, play with the best player in the league, and at his age, still do an alright job of defending his assignments instead of a shoot first, shoot second minded point guard with breakneck speed.

Tonight was another example of Brooks being overrated by you. Fisher was NOT in the line-up, which means he was being guarded by even worse (According to you) defenders. He was playing so badly, Adelman had to put Kyle Lowry (Who is absolutely better than Aaron Brooks) in. With worse defenders, Brooks ended the night with a whopping 7 points, 3 turnovers and 1 assist.

[moon]

Originally Posted by StrayBullet

Again, I'd like to respond with wondering how you think he's better. You stated that "He is better than Fisher" and in brackets, "What is he 36-38 now". What does age have to do with being better than Aaron Brooks?

AS I said earlier, age comes into because Fisher was better than Brooks when younger. Now that he is older he is not as good as a defender as he was and therefore Brooks can score on him.

I gave examples of older players who were great, but are still better than good players now. I would rather have an aging vet with great leadership skills, who can still hit big shots, play with the best player in the league, and at his age, still do an alright job of defending his assignments instead of a shoot first, shoot second minded point guard with breakneck speed.

Thats great but it doesn't have much to do with the fact that based on the defenders that Brooks is facing in this series that it isn't crazy top think that he can score double digits every game.

Tonight was another example of Brooks being overrated by you. Fisher was NOT in the line-up, which means he was being guarded by even worse (According to you) defenders. He was playing so badly, Adelman had to put Kyle Lowry (Who is absolutely better than Aaron Brooks) in. With worse defenders, Brooks ended the night with a whopping 7 points, 3 turnovers and 1 assist.

I don't know how I can overrate Brooks when I don't think that he is that good.

The point I made is that with the crap defenders that the Lakers have at PG it is entirely possible that Brooks can put up double digit points every single game. It has a lot more to do with how bad the Lakers PG's are moreso than Brooks being any good.

And again I don't care how many assists or turnovers he had. He had a bad night last nightbut that doesn't change the fact that considering who he (or any PG playing the Lakers) can get double digits points every night.

[StrayBullet]

Originally Posted by moon

AS I said earlier, age comes into because Fisher was better than Brooks when younger. Now that he is older he is not as good as a defender as he was and therefore Brooks can score on him.




Thats great but it doesn't have much to do with the fact that based on the defenders that Brooks is facing in this series that it isn't crazy top think that he can score double digits every game.



I don't know how I can overrate Brooks when I don't think that he is that good.

The point I made is that with the crap defenders that the Lakers have at PG it is entirely possible that Brooks can put up double digit points every single game. It has a lot more to do with how bad the Lakers PG's are moreso than Brooks being any good.

And again I don't care how many assists or turnovers he had. He had a bad night last nightbut that doesn't change the fact that considering who he (or any PG playing the Lakers) can get double digits points every night.

At this point, Aaron Brooks is not a better player than Fish or Farmar because he is unable to distribute the ball. He is not better than Farmar or Shannon Brown because he is incapable of matching strength when driving inside. He is not better than Farmar or Fisher because he is not as good of a shooter than either and again, Game 3 was a prime example of exposing a player with lack of talent.
The only thing he has over all three point guards is speed. He's just fast. And according to you, Brooks is better than Fisher, Jordan Farmar and Shannon Brown? I understand that one game may not be enough for you to see it, but just watching him play over the last two seasons and in the Portland series and these 3 games shows me that his deficiencies were exposed by the guard coming off of the bench. The same guard that you said was not as good as Aaron Brooks because of defensive capabilities.
Your argument of scoring double-digits in garbage time and taking a ton of shots to get there does NOT make him better.
The issue here was never to see if he can consistently score double-digit points throughout the series - You came up with that argument. The issue here was that I was positive that he could not maintain the type of plays he had from Game 1 throughout the series.... And he hasn't.

[StrayBullet]

Carmelo wins Game 3 for Denver with a three-pointer, leaving 1.0 second on the clock today! What a great game. The Nuggets are now up 3-0 and there is trouble in Big D. Even though Melo hit that last shot, the biggest factor in Denver's win was Chauncey. 33 points, nearly perfect from the line and he hit some big shots down the stretch. Carmelo was no joke either with his 31 points and 8 rebounds.

[Machiavelli]

'Melo is one of my favorite NBA players.

[malcolmk14]

I don't think the Cavs will lose another game until 2016.

[StrayBullet]

Does Aaron Brooks really have 22 points?? ....moon must be smiling.

[StrayBullet]

Houston jumped out to a big lead in the 1st Quarter and never looked back. They outworked, out shot, and played tough defense today and unfortunately, the Lakers couldn't fight through. In spite of a bad shooting night, Ron Artest made his presence felt in other aspects... So did Luis Scola. The real story here is moon's boy, Aaron Brooks who had a masterful 34 points and shot the lights out. He was unconscious all game.
I honestly didn't know what or how the Rockets were going to play today without Yao, but they came out firing and were unafraid in spite of losing their best player. Game 5 should be interesting. I'm more interested in seeing how the Rockets play in Staples Centre after such a dominating performance.

[malcolmk14]

Don't forget that I pimped him in posts 43 and 52 well before moon came along. I feel somewhat vindicated hahaha.

Go Rockets.

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

The huge matchup advantages that Houston needs to exploit offensively against the Lakers are at Center and Point Guard. The Lakers just don't have an answer for Aaron Brooks; At this point the best solution might be to have Kobe guard him. If they can continue to take advantage of these matchups, and neutralize Kobe 50% of the time with Battier and Artest, then they will have a chance to make this a long series.

Cavaliers should sweep the Hawks, those teams are just on different levels. At most, that series goes 5.

No idea who wins Boston vs Orlando. Don't really care. Whoever does is going to have their hands full with the Cavaliers anyway.

Denver should take care of Dallas quite easily. Just not a great matchup at all for Dallas, and they will be outcoached by George Karl.

Expecting a Lakers/Cavaliers Final but would not be surprised to see Nuggets/Cavaliers. I don't think anyone's beating LeBron this year.

This looks about right so far.

[OILFAN #81]

I still think the Fakeshow will win the series as they will bounce back in game 5 but Cleveland is going to win the championship. Lebron > Kobe and Cavs > Lakers. GO CLEVELAND!

[Hustle]

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

I still think the Fakeshow will win the series as they will bounce back in game 5 but Cleveland is going to win the championship. Lebron > Kobe and Cavs > Lakers. GO CLEVELAND!

I definitley think that the Lakers will get by the Rockets unfortunately. That said, if they don't step it up ASAP... they won't get by Denver, let alone Cleveland.