Is it Brooks time ???

[Fafnir]

I'd rather see Bayless get all of Lees run.

Brooks hasn't shown the ability to score during his time against NBA competition. I don't think d-league performances are telling us he's turned the corner.

Seriously?  Brooks had 9 games of 20 or more points as a rookie, and was used sparingly, at best, last season.

The fact that he couldn't crack the Nets rotation over Bogans speaks volumes about the quality of his play.

He's got great moves, great footwork, can post up with counters, has an excellent midrange game, can rebound, and even block shots.  I don't know how good he can be, but I do think that he's one of those guys who would have learned and benefited so much from the Big Three, especially KG and Pierce (who could only have taught him more offensive moves).  Can't we just test him out?

His footwork and dribbling aren't very good, he loses the ball all of the time because of it. His moves just don't work very well against NBA caliber athletes. That's a big problem, his moves also at their best generate low percentage jump shots. He doesn't create high quality looks at the rim or for others.

Then you have to look at how he plays when he doesn't have the ball. He's not an efficient spot up shooter overall and he doesn't make good decisions about moving the ball. On the other end his defense and rebounding are negatives for the team.

Just not an NBA player there right now. Maybe if given run and coaching he can develop into one but he's already old for a NBA prospect. Until he learns to play within an offensive system I don't see him being rotation worthy.

[Fafnir]

I think he probably gets rotation minutes to an extent now.
I'd say he went to the lobsters because they were considering trades involving our 26 shooting guards and they did move one so nows his shot.

And for everyone bagging on him, he averaged 48% from the field as a jump shooter in his second year for Brooklyn. He's also improved his 3 point stroke to NBA range..he just needs a chance. His per is great too...and after being in this scheme for a season his defense will be much improved.

13 PER isn't great, especially when you're taking a decent number of shots from the floor.

Not all 46.3% (not 48%) are created equal. Brooks didn't get to the line much or take many 3s. His eFG%/TS% weren't all that great. I'm skeptical he's going to be a league average 3 point shooter as he hasn't shown it at the NBA level yet.

Then you get to his defense, ball movement, and rebounding....

[GreenWarrior]

I'd rather see Bayless get all of Lees run.

Brooks hasn't shown the ability to score during his time against NBA competition. I don't think d-league performances are telling us he's turned the corner.

Seriously?  Brooks had 9 games of 20 or more points as a rookie, and was used sparingly, at best, last season.  The most he's played this year was one 18 minute stint against Minnesota, and then would go over a week without playing, so how does any of that qualify as a 'good run' with our club?  Aside from that game in Minny, btw, he's done what Stevens has wanted him to do when he's actually played, not just chucking shots.  I just don't get all of the negativity surrounding the kid, it's not like we're contending - let him play!  He's the best offensive player on the team and can create his own shot, and if Bradley improved so much after playing with Rondo, why can't Brooks do the same?  The kid needs actual playing time, and not for two games.  Let's give him a month's worth of games and then we can at least have a small sample size to analyze.  He's got great moves, great footwork, can post up with counters, has an excellent midrange game, can rebound, and even block shots.  I don't know how good he can be, but I do think that he's one of those guys who would have learned and benefited so much from the Big Three, especially KG and Pierce (who could only have taught him more offensive moves).  Can't we just test him out?

I agree to a certain extent. I gotta believe the reason why he's never been given some serious mins. is because the coaches see more of what he can't do than we'll probably ever see.

though, i'm not a fan of just giving min's to someone just because. i'd like to see some long stretches of him so I could judge for myself.

I think every team's superstar needs to be a lil selfish(not "carmello selfish") but able to do it in moderation. we know brooks can be selfish so he's half way there.

[hwangjini_1]

I think he probably gets rotation minutes to an extent now.
I'd say he went to the lobsters because they were considering trades involving our 26 shooting guards and they did move one so nows his shot.

And for everyone bagging on him, he averaged 48% from the field as a jump shooter in his second year for Brooklyn. He's also improved his 3 point stroke to NBA range..he just needs a chance. His per is great too...and after being in this scheme for a season his defense will be much improved.

i believe the criticisms against brooks had very little to do with his ability to score. correct me if i am wrong, but his perceived shortcomings were:

- ball hog, yes he scores but not within the team offense, which means the team offense stagnates.
- inefficient scorer, lots of shots and misses to get his points, which goes with the point above.
- he scores, but what else does he do? he did not play good defense, was not a good passer, he made poor decisions on court, and was not much of a rebounder. that is, he was a one trick pony, and an inefficient pony at that.

has brooks overcome these shortcomings to the extent that he can contribute to the team effectively? i dont know. but i do know that the nets gave up on him and stevens has not been impressed with him so far.

what the heck. the season is for development, right? when he comes back maybe stevens will give him some time on court and we can see if he really is a one trick pony or maybe he has matured and grown as a basketball player.

personally, i am betting that he is now what he was then. but it would be nice to be wrong once more.

[PhoSita]

Brooks isn't worth the effort, in any case.  There's a tendency to be overly enamored of players who have the occasional breakout scoring performance (call it the Jeff Green effect).

Any young hyperathletic wing who can play some defense and grab a good number of rebounds for his size would be more useful to the team than a player like Brooks, who's a lesser version of Nick Young -- and Young isn't an especially useful player as it is.

[kozlodoev]

Brooks isn't worth the effort, in any case.  There's a tendency to be overly enamored of players who have the occasional breakout scoring performance (call it the Jeff Green effect).

Any young hyperathletic wing who can play some defense and grab a good number of rebounds for his size would be more useful to the team than a player like Brooks, who's a lesser version of Nick Young -- and Young isn't an especially useful player as it is.

So wait, Brooks is an example of the Jeff Green effect, but Jeff Green is an example of a player who would be more useful to the team?

 

[LooseCannon]

I think defense is the main knock against him.  If he is playing bad defense in the D-League, then I would tend to be pessimistic about his chances of earning playing time.

A no-defense, inefficient volume scorer just seems like a bad fit for the coaching philosophy of Brad Stevens.  I don't think Brooks fits this new era of the Celtics and I don't think anyone who resembles Brooks will be a target in free agency this summer.

[PhoSita]

Brooks isn't worth the effort, in any case.  There's a tendency to be overly enamored of players who have the occasional breakout scoring performance (call it the Jeff Green effect).

Any young hyperathletic wing who can play some defense and grab a good number of rebounds for his size would be more useful to the team than a player like Brooks, who's a lesser version of Nick Young -- and Young isn't an especially useful player as it is.

So wait, Brooks is an example of the Jeff Green effect, but Jeff Green is an example of a player who would be more useful to the team?

 

Meh, Green is just an okay defender and is not a very good rebounder for his size.

In any case, Green is a fine enough player.  It's the Jeff Green effect because his value gets way overestimated by many simply because he occasionally has games where he scores a lot of points.

[Celtics4ever]

Green is just an okay defender and is not a very good rebounder for his size.

I have seen him play well certain games on D as well. He is a good shot blocker at the three hole.  Trouble with Green as you say is his inconsistency.

[PhoSita]

Green is just an okay defender and is not a very good rebounder for his size.

I have seen him play well certain games on D as well. He is a good shot blocker at the three hole.  Trouble with Green as you say is his inconsistency.

He has some games where he looks good on defense, as do most players.  He does get a nice block once in a while, but I don't put much stock in blocks unless they come about as a result of or coincide with consistent shot deterrence, especially near the rim.