90 replies to this topic

[Buckko]

I have thought of injuries. if Howard gets hurt LMA will play center until he returns. also don't forget we still have d-mo........if he beefed up like I been hearing.......then he can also take some minutes at center. as for Beverly we have a different opinion  of him because I see him as more than a spark plug. I think you are underestimating what he will become.

If you saw at the end of games when he had starter minutes, he was worn out. Demo is a good shooter and has a great post game which makes him great for offense off the bench, but is defensive liability. That's why I believe in starting jones who isn't as good on offense as demo but far better defensive player but the problem is we would probably end up losing him in an LA trade.

Edited by Buckko, 26 July 2013 - 03:06 PM.

[rockets best fan]

If you saw at the end of games when he had starter minutes, he was worn out. Demo is a good shooter and has a great post game which makes him great for offense off the bench, but is defensive liability. That's why I believe in starting jones who isn't as good on offense as demo but far better defensive player but the problem is we would probably end up losing him in an LA trade.

we can't be watching the same player in regards to Beverly. I haven't seen any of what you are talking about in the fatigue department. as for d-mo if he doesn't learn how to play defense then he will never get consistant minutes. I think that's part of the plan in helping him beef up and get stronger......so he can hold his own in that department.

[Losthief]

If ur going for a championship you dont wait on guys to develop, tjones def has some star potential but if that stardom comes after howards finished dominating....its too little too late, thats why you make trades for the 3rd guarenteed star, cause ur window might be shorter than you think. And parsons will have bird rights i believe and for a contender les has said he will foot the tax bill so no worries there. If u can get lma, love or equivalent w/o giving up harden, howard, parsons and more than one future 1st round pick you gotta make that run at the trophy i think. If they ask more than that, well we just stay put , bueaty of being in a good spot is being able to choose ur dance partners.

[Buckko]

If ur going for a championship you dont wait on guys to develop, tjones def has some star potential but if that stardom comes after howards finished dominating....its too little too late, thats why you make trades for the 3rd guarenteed star, cause ur window might be shorter than you think. And parsons will have bird rights i believe and for a contender les has said he will foot the tax bill so no worries there. If u can get lma, love or equivalent w/o giving up harden, howard, parsons and more than one future 1st round pick you gotta make that run at the trophy i think. If they ask more than that, well we just stay put , bueaty of being in a good spot is being able to choose ur dance partners.

Howard is a big and will not deteriorate as quick as a guard, plus his minutes will be spaced with asik. We have a chance for a dynasty and you want to gut the team for a quick 2 year title chance? When will yall learn we don't need a star PF. Please tell me how this star PF of yours will get ANY touches or points. They would become utterly redundant and useless. We already have 3 stars and you you're so greedy you want a max contract player to get paid 15 million to put up 10 points a night. I'm sorry there is no logic there.  

Edited by Buckko, 27 July 2013 - 05:22 PM.

[Losthief]

parsons isn't a star player...end of story...don't let the media fool you into that. Might he become one, possibly...but its not guarenteed. And how does the 3rd guy mess with the dynasty?

[Buckko]

parsons isn't a star player...end of story...don't let the media fool you into that. Might he become one, possibly...but its not guarenteed. And how does the 3rd guy mess with the dynasty?

To have a dynasty, you need quality backups or you would just run your starters to death. To get this 4th star because Parsons can easily become a star(Compare Parson's and Paul George's Sophomore seasons) you would have to gut said quality backups and a lone injury could derail your team or if one star starts to develop major injuries problems you are screwed and not having quality backups increases injury chances drastically. Not to mention the 4th star would be soaking up some much cap just to put up 12 points a night when Jones can do that. That's why.

[Cooper]

To have a dynasty, you need quality backups or you would just run your starters to death. To get this 4th star because Parsons can easily become a star(Compare Parson's and Paul George's Sophomore seasons) you would have to gut said quality backups and a lone injury could derail your team or if one star starts to develop major injuries problems you are screwed and not having quality backups increases injury chances drastically. Not to mention the 4th star would be soaking up some much cap just to put up 12 points a night when Jones can do that. That's why.

Parsons isn't Paul George and isn't a star and we don't have cap space the next 2 years either way

Edited by Cooper, 27 July 2013 - 06:39 PM.

[Losthief]

So now Jones playing the same position as LMA/New star would put up 12 pts why said star would only get 10? not very logical is that?

 

parsons isn't a star player...end of story...don't let the media fool you into that. Might he become one, possibly...but its not guarenteed or even likely. Stars change how teams play defense against teams, they mess with opponents defensive schems, Parsons feast on others creating that opening for him, and in transition, a great player, not a star player imho. If you don't consider paul millsap type player a star, then parsons isn't one as there very similar players stats/production wise.

 

Im not advocating giving up harden, howard, parsons for the 3rd guy. So your dynastic core is still there. And before you say the 3rd guy rules out parsons, we have his bird rights to re-sign him just fine. And Les has said he'll pay luxury tax to win titles.

 

And no, they don't become redundant. james harden at 5th in the league shot 17 times a game last season. (Aldridge 17, Howard 10) The rockets took 82 shots. Let's say howard takes 15 at least. So thats 59 shots a game. That still leaves 23 shots for everyone else if they don't even scarfice any shots (and howard adds some) which they will, cause harden won't play as many minutes (won't need to, and both LMA and the beard played on teams that needed them to shoot ALOT, harden can and will play with other scorers look at OKC). Redundant is sticking with Omer and Howard. actually, (which i think isn't a bad thing necessarily cause i love defense) but getting another efficent scorer/change opponents defense scheme player isn't redundant, it's smart. Saying something isn't logical doesn't make it so, saying they 3rd star will only put up 10 points a night is ridiculous and thats illogical (especially without stats/reasoning).

 

We had 6 guys score (http://espn.go.com/n...houston-rockets) more than 10 points a night last year. Two are gone, Delfino and Patterson/our starting pf (making btwn 18-21 pts). Two would be gone in the trade (Asik and LIn (totalling 23.5)) So LOGICALLY replacing 15-20 points with a new guy shouldn't be too hard and 15-20 points with Howard wouldn't be a big deal, actually you would have extra points laying around to be used by our bench. 
 

And hows does giving up Lin/Asik/one of Jones/DMO and/or Draft Pick affect our depth really? I get the point guard arguement, but we do have brooks, beverly, canaan on the roster as well. At pf we'd have the new guy (or vice versa at pg if we traded for one there) plus still one of DMO/Jones plus greg smith/camby/gracia or parsons (small ball lineups). Again, remember your getting a guy to play 30 plus minutes a night at a need position at a higher level than anyone your giving up while losing a backup (15? min per night in Asik) and a weak-link starter for the most part in lin (aka easier to get replaced minutes). So you net positive would be greater imho.

Edited by Losthief, 27 July 2013 - 06:53 PM.

[rockets best fan]

@Losthief

totally agree

[Buckko]

So now Jones playing the same position as LMA/New star would put up 12 pts why said star would only get 10? not very logical is that?

parsons isn't a star player...end of story...don't let the media fool you into that. Might he become one, possibly...but its not guarenteed or even likely. Stars change how teams play defense against teams, they mess with opponents defensive schems, Parsons feast on others creating that opening for him, and in transition, a great player, not a star player imho. If you don't consider paul millsap type player a star, then parsons isn't one as there very similar players stats/production wise.

Im not advocating giving up harden, howard, parsons for the 3rd guy. So your dynastic core is still there. And before you say the 3rd guy rules out parsons, we have his bird rights to re-sign him just fine. And Les has said he'll pay luxury tax to win titles.

And no, they don't become redundant. james harden at 5th in the league shot 17 times a game last season. (Aldridge 17, Howard 10) The rockets took 82 shots. Let's say howard takes 15 at least. So thats 59 shots a game. That still leaves 23 shots for everyone else if they don't even scarfice any shots (and howard adds some) which they will, cause harden won't play as many minutes (won't need to, and both LMA and the beard played on teams that needed them to shoot ALOT, harden can and will play with other scorers look at OKC). Redundant is sticking with Omer and Howard. actually, (which i think isn't a bad thing necessarily cause i love defense) but getting another efficent scorer/change opponents defense scheme player isn't redundant, it's smart. Saying something isn't logical doesn't make it so, saying they 3rd star will only put up 10 points a night is ridiculous and thats illogical (especially without stats/reasoning).

We had 6 guys score (http://espn.go.com/n...houston-rockets) more than 10 points a night last year. Two are gone, Delfino and Patterson/our starting pf (making btwn 18-21 pts). Two would be gone in the trade (Asik and LIn (totalling 23.5)) So LOGICALLY replacing 15-20 points with a new guy shouldn't be too hard and 15-20 points with Howard wouldn't be a big deal, actually you would have extra points laying around to be used by our bench.

And hows does giving up Lin/Asik/one of Jones/DMO and/or Draft Pick affect our depth really? I get the point guard arguement, but we do have brooks, beverly, canaan on the roster as well. At pf we'd have the new guy (or vice versa at pg if we traded for one there) plus still one of DMO/Jones plus greg smith/camby/gracia or parsons (small ball lineups). Again, remember your getting a guy to play 30 plus minutes a night at a need position at a higher level than anyone your giving up while losing a backup (15? min per night in Asik) and a weak-link starter for the most part in lin (aka easier to get replaced minutes). So you net positive would be greater imho.

[rockets best fan]

Parsons isn't Paul George and isn't a star and we don't have cap space the next 2 years either way

agreed