PDA

View Full Version : Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks



RoboHicks
06-19-2011, 04:00 PM
Tbird 2011 NBA draft analysis #10: Marshon Brooks
Written by thunderbird1245

Link (http://www.pacersdigest.com/wordpress/?p=513)

Less than 100 hours away from NBA, I present the 10th write up in this 2011 draft series, and in depth profile of Providence high scoring wing man Marshon Brooks. Previously 9 deep analysis pieces have been written this year, among them Alec Burks, Tristan Thompson, Chris Singleton, and Marcus Morris…..you can read those articles plus the 5 additional breakdowns elsewhere on this site.

Brooks has moved up draft boards during the workout season, after having a very good statistical year playing for the doormat of the Big East Conference, the Providence Friars. Certainly Brooks put up gaudy numbers, scoring huge amounts of points against some of the countries best teams….including scoring over 50 points in a 2 point loss the Mike Brey’s Notre Dame Fighting Irish.

Measuring in at the NBA combine at 6’5″ 1/4, Brooks has legitimate NBA wing size, especially when you factor is his freakish wingspan of 7’1.* He weighs a rather spindly 195lbs, though he looked stronger just with the eye test than some of his other wing counterparts in this draft. Likely however he will need to gain a few pounds, and he appears to have a frame that will be able to do that as time goes on. Brooks clearly passes the eyeball test, and looks the part of an NBA basketball player.

One interesting tidbit: To my knowledge, Brooks will be the only player in the NBA whose mother is a professional referee……his mother is a long time basketball official, now employed by the WNBA.

————————————————————————————————————————————— —-

As the second leading scorer in NCAA basketball, Brooks clearly proved that in his senior season at Providence than he can score the ball, averaging 24.5 ppg. However, as with all scorers, it is important to breakdown just how those points were achieved, so we can try and figure out how his game will translate at the next level.

Providence gave Brooks more responsibility and freedom on offense than any player I have ever broken down in my years of doing these draft profiles for Pacersdigest. Providence loved to just clear a side or the top, give Brooks the basketball, and spread the floor and let him do his thing. Certainly little to no complexity in the Friars attack, the just dumped the ball to Brooks and hoped for the best.

That didn’t lead all that often to a “blow by” situation even at the college level. More often than not it led instead to some very difficult contested jump shots off the dribble, some of which Brooks made but more often than you’d like he would miss, as he actually didn’t seem to be that accurate off the dribble as a pull up shooter. His mechanics in this situations were somewhat amiss, as he had a very difficult time getting his upper body and lower body in synch with one another. That led to alot of spectacular looking makes but led to even more misses….and let me tell you, when Brooks missed he was missing badly. No player probably tossed up more bricks this season that Brooks. When he misses, he misses horribly. Yet, he does have a nice touch on his shot and a good high release, so the problem isnt isn’t upper shot form, instead it is a matter of really bad balance with his legs and the fact that he takes an extraordinarily high number of really bad shots that he never will be allowed to shoot at the NBA level. So clearly the way to guard Brooks was to force him outside his comfort zone, make him bounce it, then work hard to stay in front of him and make him take a tough pull up jumper…..which he was anxious to do. Those misses often led to fast break points the other way, as Providence was really bad defensively in transition and often had bad floor balance when Brooks would take all of those ill advised shots…..one of the main reasons that their coach got fired after going 4-14 in conference.

Brooks has speed with the basketball in open court situations, but he isn’t quick or that explosive on his first step in an attack dribble move….he is like a car with really high top end speed but that takes a while to get started. That usually leads to not being able to clear his own man enough to get all the way by him, especially against high level athletes. And he is not a high flyer, we won’t be a guy who dunks alot or flies high above the rim on drives. Instead, he will have to rely on more savvy moves, being able to put up little floaters and off balance running shots to get by. He is good enough to make those shots at Providence, but can he make them at the NBA level? That will be the question.

You rarely see Brooks coming off a hard cut to get the basketball, nor did you see him receiving alot of basic basketball screen actions….he wasn’t asked to come off pin downs, staggered screens, cross screens, flare screens, or anything else that would be considered basic basketball at most programs. And despite being considered a really good off the dribble player, you also rarely see Providence set any ball screens for their best player, an oddity considering that the ball screen has made a huge come back at the lower levels of basketball in the past few years. Now, despite getting fired, the Providence coaches had had success at other levels and at other schools, so they aren’t stupid people. I think the question has to be asked about why they used Brooks the way they did. It did help him put up good numbers, but it didn’t help them win……..so what were the reasons they used him so clearly as a pure isolation guy?

Brooks clearly didn’t play well without the ball at all. He stood, failed to move, didn’t set up cuts well, and seemed to always read screens pretty poorly, on the rare occasion he received one. Providence also didn’t seem to run very many complex set plays in order to make Brooks harder to guard, or to try and improve his judgment or their floor balance or to get others involved.

My theory is, and it is only a theory based on how they played on tape and how Brooks seemed to play in general, is that he has a tough time processing information, struggles to remember complex plays or systems, and basically isn’t an overly smart and savvy basketball player. Instead, I am guessing their coaches used him they way they did because after he had been on campus for 4 years, they knew that was the only way he’d be successful…..and as their best player they chose to plan around him rather that their younger guys….a decision that led them to last place and got them canned, though it also apparently will prepare Marshon Brooks to the first round of the NBA draft.

————————————————————————————————————————————— —–

I would like to give you a breakdown of all of the great reads, great passes, or great decisions Marshon Brooks made that I saw on tape. However, the words “pass” and “Marshon Brooks”, don’t go together that well. When he drove, Brooks was going to take a shot of some kind, there was just no doubt about it. He was capable of getting incredibly hot at times, but for a guy who drove that often you’d think at least a few times he would’ve drawn defenders to him and dished to another player for an easy basket….but you certainly don’t see that on film. Now I realize Providence might not have been that good, but what I saw is a player with total tunnel vision with the basketball, who had a tough time seeing and planning for secondary defenders when they helped to him….a guy who didn’t understand where his teammates would be and how to get the ball to them. I don’t know if it was complete selfishness on his part, I just thought I saw someone who didn’t quite understand the best way to attack a defense in a 5 on 5 situation. Again, not saying Brooks wasn’t good enough to score anyway sometimes, because he did….but his missed horrible shots and bad decisions cost his team as many points going to the other end just as much as he scored himself. Brooks turned it over more than he assisted in college, and as scouting gets more intense and the defenders more athletic, I question whether that will improve any at the next level.

I did like the short memory he had, and the willingness to always take shots no matter what had happened before. His self confidence oozes out of him, and he clearly is a kid who doesn’t get down on himself. But I didn’t see alot of togetherness on his college team, not alot of huddling or talking to his teammates or encouraging them or whatever, another symptom of a team who struggled. He wasn’t willing or didn’t seem capable of doing whatever it took to win a game, instead I saw a guy who much of the time played like “Me-Shon” instead of “Marshon”. Keep in mind that Brooks was a senior leader on this team, not a young freshman or sophomore…..and I do have to factor that in my evaluation.

————————————————————————————————————————————— –

Brooks will need to make a major adjustment to his way of thinking and playing at the NBA level offensively, but he clearly has 2 major NBA ready skills.

One his ability to catch and shoot in a spot up situations. Brooks was good in transition just rising up and taking the quick 3 point shot, and I also believe that if/when he plays with better talent that he can be a very good spot up guy in halfcourt draw and kick situations.* I don’t think he will be a player, despite all the reports we are reading, that you can ever run plays for to score…..I just don’t see the complexity in his reading screens, the ability to play the screen/roll game, and I have questions that his one on one game will be good enough at this level. But I do believe he can be a very good shooter for someone, as long as all he is asked to do is get in position and be ready to fire. To me he clearly needs a creator around him to help him get those type of shots more often. If he does, I think he can score in this league, but I don’t see him being to score points THE SAME WAY he did at Providence…..his game is going to need to morph into something else entirely. But his ability to shoot can’t be questioned….love the high release, footwork, and follow thru especially. Add those good fundamentals to a guy who clearly has no conscience and you might have something there eventually, as long as he plays within his own skill set.

The other skill that is NBA ready I think is his ability to rebound from the wing position, IF he dedicates himself to being that good at that in the league. He has really good hands, and his amazing length should make him a very good defensive rebounder for his position in the future. Now keep in mind that his numbers are somewhat inflated at Providence, due to the lack of any one else they had with any talent, and also the fact that their pace of play was so really fast. There were more rebound chances and opportunities in a Providence College game than 95% of the teams you’d see play. Still, his gifts are too good to be ignored on the glass, and as long as his effort level stays the same on the boards when he doesn’t get to dominate the ball offensively, then he should be above average as a rebound guy for a “2″ in this league.

————————————————————————————————————————————— —-

Was Brooks a lockdown defender at Providence? Clearly not. But he does have enough athletic gifts that he should be better than he has proven so far. Providence played little defense in general, and when they did you saw alot of attempted full court pressure and halfcourt zone defense. So they clearly played a style that wasn’t conducive to winning.

I saw a guy in Brooks who has really good top end speed, but not super great lateral quickness. Can he be improved in that area, time will tell. My guess is that Brooks will do fine defending the ball when his man isolates against him, but will struggle to get around screens, struggle in help defense and in more complex defensive systems. He will be a guy who gambles alot and gets some steals, and his length should let him be above league positional average in blocks per minutes. I can see him having some good stats, but when digging deeper I am not sure I see the consistent effort or aptitude to make his team any better defensively when he is on the floor. He really seemed to struggle to “defend his gap”, and screens really bothered him. And when his man screened someone else, Brooks didn’t show any real energy or desire to hedge out, bump cutters, or do anything but play individual defense. Whether that shows a lack of effort or lack of sheer basketball understanding (that is my guess from afar) is hard to say.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

So what do we have in Marshon Brooks?

What I think we have is a player with a scorer’s mentality, who takes bad shots and doesn’t always play the game with intelligence and savvy. But he also plays with a striking self confidence and short memory, which is appealing in its own right. I think we see a player who will have one of the bigger learning curves and adjustments to the league than the other perimeter players likely to be drafted in the first round. I think we have a kid whose main strengths won’t be as good with the upgrade in competition, but who has enough talent and charisma to re invent himself in the right situation as a creative second unit scorer, scoring in a multitude of ways if he is willing to put the work in and change his game somewhat.* I severely* question his overall basketball IQ and vision/awareness levels, and the fact that he put up alot of numbers as a chucker on a bad team goes against him in my scouting mind….especially when he did it as a senior playing against mostly underclassmen. I see a guy who has some serious adjustments to make in his level of concentration and in his preparation and overall knowledge of how to play and win and be a professional. When you listen to an interview and hear him constantly refer to himself in the third person ( a trait I absolutely hate when people do it), I wonder if he will ever “get it”.

The big scouting debate you hear going on right now is the huge battle between players who play the same position…guys like Alec Burks, Klay Thompson, and Marshon Brooks. Rumor is that Brooks is killing those other 2 in workouts in each city, a major reason why his stock is rising all over the league.

But to me, those 1 on 1, 2 on 2, or 3 on 3 workouts are very misleading. I don’t have much doubt that in a scrimmage situation where there is no crowd, no teamwork, no plays to remember, no scouting reports, and no referees that Brooks likely is the more impressive player than Burks or Thompson. He is more athletic and more aggressive than both of them at this point. But while I believe those 2 kids can play the same style of basketball they played in college (and just need to improve their weaknesses and get stronger), Brooks will need to be much more adaptable than they will. I just don’t see that as anywhere near as likely to happen.Plus, when you consider that he is quite a bit older than those 2 players, to me picking Burks or Thompson over him seems to be a no brainer.

————————————————————————————————————————————— ——

So what will Indiana do at #15 with Marshon Brooks?

Despite what the pundits are reporting, I believe Indiana will pass on Marshon Brooks. I just have a hard time believing that one of the most savvy, intelligent, best passers, and player with maybe thew best anticipation and court vision of any player in the history of the game will select a player like Marshon Brooks. Brooks has talent and I think he will stick in the league for a few years, but I think Indiana should and will pass. We will find out if I am correct on Thursday night. Of course, in the unlikely event that every other single player I like better is gone, then I’d go ahead and take him…..but I think there will players in this draft available that I like better when we are on the clock.

————————————————————————————————————————————— —

So where does Brooks end up instead?

To me, he would fit best in the high tempo, open court style of play. That to me is just screaming 2 locations for him to be selected, which are Minnesota at #20 and Denver at #22.* I think Chicago at #28 would love to have him as well, and might even package #28 and #30 to move up a little bit to try and snag him. My guess is he ends up with one of those 3 teams.

————————————————————————————————————————————— —

Current NBA comparable: slightly bigger and longer armed Jodie Meeks

Past NBA comparable : Any thoughts?

As always, the above is just my opinion.

Tbird

http://www.pacersdigest.com/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/share_save_171_16.png (http://www.addtoany.com/share_save)

pacer4ever
06-19-2011, 04:04 PM
I agree i do not want Brooks he reminds me to much of Flip Murry or JR Smith. Doesn't play good defense is actually poor from everything i hear. The key point is he needs the ball in his hands to be successful i don't want that type of guy unless he is an excellent defender.

Pass

xBulletproof
06-19-2011, 05:03 PM
I think Brooks is the decoy this year. Just my feeling.

That said, I have NO CLUE who he could be a decoy for. I usually have a guess, but I can't even think of one now. I think we may trade back for Rick Jackson, but that's not based on anything except a hunch. We'll see.

pacer4ever
06-19-2011, 05:08 PM
I think Brooks is the decoy this year. Just my feeling.

That said, I have NO CLUE who he could be a decoy for. I usually have a guess, but I can't even think of one now. I think we may trade back for Rick Jackson, but that's not based on anything except a hunch. We'll see.

Rick should be there in the 2nd round he might even go undrafted

Gamble1
06-19-2011, 05:25 PM
I think Brooks is the decoy this year. Just my feeling.

That said, I have NO CLUE who he could be a decoy for. I usually have a guess, but I can't even think of one now. I think we may trade back for Rick Jackson, but that's not based on anything except a hunch. We'll see.
I am trying to remember the last time we used a decoy and I can't come up with anything. Certainly they like to keep things under raps but Bird did say he's tartgeting 3 players at 15 and I would have to think Brooks is on of them along with Jimmer. If anything I think Jimmer is the decoy.

imawhat
06-19-2011, 05:25 PM
I go back and forth on Brooks. I have no strong opinion of him because I haven't seen him play, but I love his stat efficiency in the given situations. Not many chuckers shoot that well, especially when asked to do all of the shot creation.

I agree that his stock's rising because the workouts cater to his strengths. And the Pacers need someone that can create their own shot. I'd argue that he'll be able to do it in the NBA if he's using his craftiness to get shots. It's like Kevin Love; different position and type of craftiness but he wasn't getting by on his size or athleticism in college either.

I think I'd pass but I think there's a 70% chance we pick him. Bird picked Hansbrough, who isn't exactly the most aware player on the court. He also traded for Collison, so I wouldn't put a scorer like Brooks past him.

xBulletproof
06-19-2011, 05:26 PM
Rick should be there in the 2nd round he might even go undrafted

Holy cow. Im shocked to see that he isn't on some mocks. I swear I saw him in some early 2nds for a while. Granted I don't watch them that closely.

imawhat
06-19-2011, 05:26 PM
If anything I think Jimmer is the decoy.

He was given a promise by Utah at #12. There's nothing for us to decoy.

cdash
06-19-2011, 05:35 PM
He was given a promise by Utah at #12. There's nothing for us to decoy.

Where are you getting that information from?

Gamble1
06-19-2011, 05:41 PM
Where are you getting that information from?
It was on twitter from unknown sources on Hoophypes rumor page which could or could not be true. Sources also said that they wouldn't take 2 guards in the first round so I think we will all know by the 3rd pick what Utah will do with the 12th.

IndyPacer
06-19-2011, 05:52 PM
I like Brooks better for AND1. I like Burks better for the NBA, as he has potential to help make his teammates better and can pass the ball around. I don't care much for Brooks and haven't understood the love affair some around here seem to have with him.

Rogco
06-19-2011, 06:13 PM
I got really carried away by the Brooks hype, but the closer we get to the draft the less I want him, especially after reading this review. I just think there are other players who will help the team more.

Shade
06-19-2011, 07:36 PM
Marshon is a high-risk, high-reward pick. If he pans out, he'll provide us with a lot of the qualities we need in a SG right now. I mean, why trade for a Crawford-level player when we can just draft him? Worst-case, I take him for trade bait to upgrade the SG position now by giving back a potentially excellent one in return.

Brooks is basically the anti-Rush. Take that for what you will.

Kemo
06-19-2011, 07:41 PM
Marshon is a high-risk, high-reward pick. If he pans out, he'll provide us with a lot of the qualities we need in a SG right now. I mean, why trade for a Crawford-level player when we can just draft him? Worst-case, I take him for trade bait to upgrade the SG position now by giving back a potentially excellent one in return.

Brooks is basically the anti-Rush. Take that for what you will.

Speaking of Jamaal Crawford , all indications point to Atlanta letting him walk to become a free agent..



.

CableKC
06-19-2011, 08:04 PM
I agree i do not want Brooks he reminds me to much of Flip Murry or JR Smith. Doesn't play good defense is actually poor from everything i hear. The key point is he needs the ball in his hands to be successful i don't want that type of guy unless he is an excellent defender.

Pass
I totally agree here on the comparison to Flip Murray when it comes to dominating the ball.....I just kept on remembering that once Flip got the ball......he kept it and you pretty much knew that he would try to score the ball on his own.

CableKC
06-19-2011, 08:11 PM
I had Brooks listed as my 1B choice in the other "Who do I want in the draft" thread.......mainly because I am sure that his ability to score was the one "sure thing" that he was more then capable of doing. However, I have had concerns about his ability to "play off the ball" and be effective without the ball in his hands since he was such a ball dominant Player....but after reading TBird's analysis....he pretty much confirmed my concerns about him and pushed him further down my list of Players to draft.

I do not doubt his ability to score....but I'm really concerned about his ability to learn to play "we ball" ( which he doesn't appear to be good at ) as opposed to "me ball" ( which he appears to be good at ).

owl
06-19-2011, 08:20 PM
Marshon is a high-risk, high-reward pick. If he pans out, he'll provide us with a lot of the qualities we need in a SG right now. I mean, why trade for a Crawford-level player when we can just draft him? Worst-case, I take him for trade bait to upgrade the SG position now by giving back a potentially excellent one in return.

Brooks is basically the anti-Rush. Take that for what you will.

I don't think he will have to be encouraged to try and score. :-)
Getting him to submit to what is best for the team will be the challenge.

Speed
06-20-2011, 10:49 AM
Man I'm kind of at a loss on who could even be a solid rotation guy at #15, now. Burks can't shoot, Jimmer can't guard, Morris' aren't very big, Singleton is offense limited, Klay isn't athletic, Biyombo is horrific offensively, Tristan Thompson is bad offensively, Tobias Harris who is 'good' at most things, great at none, Faried is the size of a shortish, strong Small Forward, basically. I just can't think of where they should go.

I'm guessing Singleton would be who I'd want, who won't even be there. Side note, I saw an article where Singleton was measured 6'7" then a few months later I guess, 6'8 1/2" IIRC.

I still wonder if Jonas will get an out to his contract, if he doesn't it'll be hard for teams to take him with the Rubio deal so fresh in peoples minds.

I suppose the Pacers will do what Bird tried to do back in Feb, trade the #15 pick.

Side Note: Morway was on a couple of Sunday night local sports deals and said they have a couple of deals in front of them to consider. Also, he said he didn't expect Jimmer to be there at #15.

Kid Minneapolis
06-20-2011, 11:30 AM
To everyone who reads these analyses, I just want to make a comment, I'm sure TBird would agree with what I'm about to say:

The important thing to remember after reading these analyses is the last statement: "As always, the above is just my opinion."

TBird, I know your analysis is sorta taken as gospel around here, so I don't want you to think this is any disrespect to you, I appreciate your effort that you give.

A lot of verbiage don't make a truth, it's still an opinion. Don't get caught up in the fact that a post is a mile long, and take it as "this must be the truth". It's someone's opinion. Just like TBird himself admitted in a recent post, he completely neglected to give thorough analyzation on Tyler Hansbrough after running out a bunch of analysis on other guys. That's not to discredit the analysis he did on other players, but even TBird is making an educated guess. It's an imperfect art.

Too many people flip-flop too easily based off the most recent article they just read. You gotta keep an even keel to this. You can't expect a perfect player at 15 in a relatively weak draft. If you overanalyze *anyone* you're going to find a bunch of negatives about them. Finding negatives about a player doesn't mean they should not be selected.

There are a lot of things about Brooks that TBird did not mention in his analysis, like intangibles... the fact that he improved significantly each year, the fact that he's known as a extremely hard, Kobe-like worker off-the-court. The fact that he *was* able to take on multiple defenders in defenses built entirely to stop him and he was still able to get his shot off or get someone else a shot, to a somewhat surprising amount of success. That is extremely crucial in the NBA. It's something this current Pacer team lacks sorely.

The negatives that were focused on were things that *we don't need*. We have versatility on this team. We have spot-up shooters. We have rebounders. We have defensive guys. What we *don't* have is a killer-instinct, isolation offensive player that we can dump the ball off to and get us a bucket against a tough defense as the game is on the line. It was the most glaring weakness this team had in the playoffs... as evidenced by the fact that we dominated the Bulls for the first 3 quarters of almost every single game, and lost it in the fourth quarter (to, you guessed it, a guy who could isolate and more importantly, draw additional defenders) when we couldn't generate a bucket within our team offense. I know people frown upon isolation plays as selfish, but it's a very necessary part of the game to incorporate in spots. The problem occurs when you *depend* on it. But you don't want to ignore it completely, either.

This draft isn't terribly strong, and we're not drafting terribly high. The expectation of getting a starter from this draft isn't likely. We're likely going to get a situational player. The situation we struggle at most, imo, is isolation. That's why I advocate getting someone like Brooks.

Gamble1
06-20-2011, 12:04 PM
This draft isn't terribly strong, and we're not drafting terribly high. The expectation of getting a starter from this draft isn't likely. We're likely going to get a situational player. The situation we struggle at most, imo, is isolation. That's why I advocate getting someone like Brooks.
Given those situations I really don't want to watch a rookie try to learn the NBA game. Isolations are important and I personally would rather sign a vet like Crawford than watch Brooks try to get his own shot in an important game like the playoffs in 2012.

I like Brooks over Klay because I want a better defender at the 2 but I would rather trade back and get Selby at 17 if thats an option. With this much money I would rather us sign FAs/trade and rely on them than drafting ones to fullfill a role that you suggest.

Kid Minneapolis
06-20-2011, 12:13 PM
1) Brooks is cheaper.
2) Crawford is 31 and likely not going to be reproducing his past performances on a regular basis.

I daresay that Brooks has a better isolation game now than Crawford anyway. Crawford does a lot of deep shots 1-on-1, almost like desperation hail mary's (which he's pretty good at, but they are becoming a lot less frequent than a few years ago). Brooks works anywhere on the court, against any # of defenders, scoring anywhere from the rim to out past the 3-point line.

Brooks is a 4-year player, so it's not like he's 18 and fragile, mentally. He's not a raw guy who needs a ton of development as say, Biyombo. He has a polished and versatile offensive repertoire. I understand that Brooks likely won't be winning us any championships this year, but next year, the year after, he could be a real isolation force. And whos to say that he wouldn't be a significant playoff contributor, anyway? Would anyone have imagined that Paul George (mostly unknown and with a lot of question marks, but a lot of "upside" that needed to be developed) would be "locking down" Derrick Rose in his rookie season playoff run? You just never know.

DrFife
06-20-2011, 12:19 PM
Man I'm kind of at a loss on who could even be a solid rotation guy at #15, now. Burks can't shoot, Jimmer can't guard, Morris' aren't very big, Singleton is offense limited, Klay isn't athletic, Biyombo is horrific offensively, Tristan Thompson is bad offensively, Tobias Harris who is 'good' at most things, great at none, Faried is the size of a shortish, strong Small Forward, basically. I just can't think of where they should go.

I'm guessing Singleton would be who I'd want, who won't even be there. Side note, I saw an article where Singleton was measured 6'7" then a few months later I guess, 6'8 1/2" IIRC.

I still wonder if Jonas will get an out to his contract, if he doesn't it'll be hard for teams to take him with the Rubio deal so fresh in peoples minds.

I suppose the Pacers will do what Bird tried to due back in Feb, trade the #15 pick.

Side Note: Morway was on a couple of Sunday night local sports deals and said they have a couple of deals in front of them to consider. Also, he said he didn't expect Jimmer to be there at #15.

Love this post, Speed! I've been on the same wave length (but didn't hear Morway, so thanks) and am currently thinking trade down. There are half a dozen players I'd love to have in the 20s (e.g., Vucevic, Shumpert/Jackson). If we can get a veteran and one of them, then much better than what we may be looking at with #15.

PR07
06-20-2011, 12:23 PM
I did like the short memory he had, and the willingness to always take shots no matter what had happened before. His self confidence oozes out of him, and he clearly is a kid who doesn’t get down on himself.

I think this is one reason Bird may very well like him. Bird tends to like players who can bring some swagger and attitude.

Gamble1
06-20-2011, 12:24 PM
1) Brooks is cheaper.
2) Crawford is 31 and likely not going to be reproducing his past performances on a regular basis.

Ya I still would rather go the veteran route than rely on a young iso talent. With 4 seconds left on the clock Crawford is still making around 44% of his shots.


I think this is one reason Bird may very well like him. Bird tends to like players who can bring some swagger and attitude.
Lance being the most recent example.

troy_225
06-20-2011, 12:26 PM
this is off topic but its not letting me post a new thread, did the pacers print a 2010-11media guide this year? ive been trying to get one and can't find one. i've looked on ebay, amazon and the pacers homecourt 1 and 2, please help

Justin Tyme
06-20-2011, 12:31 PM
To everyone who reads these analyses, I just want to make a comment, I'm sure TBird would agree with what I'm about to say:

The important thing to remember after reading these analyses is the last statement: "As always, the above is just my opinion."

TBird, I know your analysis is sorta taken as gospel around here, so I don't want you to think this is any disrespect to you, I appreciate your effort that you give.

A lot of verbiage don't make a truth, it's still an opinion. Don't get caught up in the fact that a post is a mile long, and take it as "this must be the truth". It's someone's opinion. Just like TBird himself admitted in a recent post, he completely neglected to give thorough analyzation on Tyler Hansbrough after running out a bunch of analysis on other guys. That's not to discredit the analysis he did on other players, but even TBird is making an educated guess. It's an imperfect art.

Too many people flip-flop too easily based off the most recent article they just read. You gotta keep an even keel to this. You can't expect a perfect player at 15 in a relatively weak draft. If you overanalyze *anyone* you're going to find a bunch of negatives about them. Finding negatives about a player doesn't mean they should not be selected.

There are a lot of things about Brooks that TBird did not mention in his analysis, like intangibles... the fact that he improved significantly each year, the fact that he's known as a extremely hard, Kobe-like worker off-the-court. The fact that he *was* able to take on multiple defenders in defenses built entirely to stop him and he was still able to get his shot off or get someone else a shot, to a somewhat surprising amount of success. That is extremely crucial in the NBA. It's something this current Pacer team lacks sorely.

The negatives that were focused on were things that *we don't need*. We have versatility on this team. We have spot-up shooters. We have rebounders. We have defensive guys. What we *don't* have is a killer-instinct, isolation offensive player that we can dump the ball off to and get us a bucket against a tough defense as the game is on the line. It was the most glaring weakness this team had in the playoffs... as evidenced by the fact that we dominated the Bulls for the first 3 quarters of almost every single game, and lost it in the fourth quarter when we couldn't generate a bucket within our team offense. I know people frown upon isolation plays as selfish, but it's a very necessary part of the game to incorporate in spots. The problem occurs when you *depend* on it. But you don't want to ignore it completely, either.

This draft isn't terribly strong, and we're not drafting terribly high. The expectation of getting a starter from this draft isn't likely. We're likely going to get a situational player. The situation we struggle at most, imo, is isolation. That's why I advocate getting someone like Brooks.


I agree with your post. I love reading T-Bird's evaluations, but as you said it's just one person's opinion. Working up to the draft I was in favor of trading out of the draft, and then I got caught up in the draft hype. This draft to me is a weak draft but not w/o some talent in it. Is the talent better than trading for an established quality PF? I'm not a big fan of Milsap, but what PF in this draft at #15 is better? I'm not advocating to trade for Milsap, just making a point.

The Pacers need a a good quality PF, a b/u Center, a scorer, and a big PG. This draft might produce a scorer, and it definately has numerous big PG in it. Most of the scorers I believe will be gone by the time the Pacers pick, but not all the Big PG. Maybe it would be best to either trade back in the draft to around 20-25 get a Big PG like Darius Morris, and another pick/asset as well. So I'm wanting to either trade out or trade back in the draft. I don't see much possibility in being able to trade up in the draft.

If the Pacers could trade the #15 to the Bobcats for their #19 & #39 or to Houston for the #23 and #38, they maybe able to garner a player or 2 either equal or better than what they can at #15.

If Bird traded out of the 1st round for a good quality player, I wouldn't be unhappy at all. It still leaves a player like Leuer, Malcom Thomas, or T-Bird's Joseph or Lighty to choose at #42.

Whatever Bird decides to do JUST DO IT RIGHT!!!!!

Reginald
06-20-2011, 01:33 PM
I like Brooks better for AND1. I like Burks better for the NBA, as he has potential to help make his teammates better and can pass the ball around. I don't care much for Brooks and haven't understood the love affair some around here seem to have with him.

Haven't understood the love affair? Really?

"Marshon Brooks reportedly dominated Alec Burks one-one-one today in front of the Milwaukee Bucks. According to sources, "It wasn't even close.'" --nbadraft.net, June 14, 2011

PR07
06-20-2011, 01:37 PM
Haven't understood the love affair? Really?

"Marshon Brooks reportedly dominated Alec Burks one-one-one today in front of the Milwaukee Bucks. According to sources, "It wasn't even close.'" --nbadraft.net, June 14, 2011

Burks struggles shooting. I think that should rule him out for us. If we are drafting a SG, we are probably going to want a scorer. We already have Dahntay Jones for the "can't shoot" stopper.

Gamble1
06-20-2011, 01:46 PM
Burks struggles shooting. I think that should rule him out for us. If we are drafting a SG, we are probably going to want a scorer. We already have Dahntay Jones for the "can't shoot" stopper.
Burks actually can pass the ball which makes him better IMO.

bphil
06-20-2011, 01:54 PM
To everyone who reads these analyses, I just want to make a comment, I'm sure TBird would agree with what I'm about to say:

The important thing to remember after reading these analyses is the last statement: "As always, the above is just my opinion."

TBird, I know your analysis is sorta taken as gospel around here, so I don't want you to think this is any disrespect to you, I appreciate your effort that you give.

A lot of verbiage don't make a truth, it's still an opinion. Don't get caught up in the fact that a post is a mile long, and take it as "this must be the truth". It's someone's opinion. Just like TBird himself admitted in a recent post, he completely neglected to give thorough analyzation on Tyler Hansbrough after running out a bunch of analysis on other guys. That's not to discredit the analysis he did on other players, but even TBird is making an educated guess. It's an imperfect art.

Too many people flip-flop too easily based off the most recent article they just read. You gotta keep an even keel to this. You can't expect a perfect player at 15 in a relatively weak draft. If you overanalyze *anyone* you're going to find a bunch of negatives about them. Finding negatives about a player doesn't mean they should not be selected.

There are a lot of things about Brooks that TBird did not mention in his analysis, like intangibles... the fact that he improved significantly each year, the fact that he's known as a extremely hard, Kobe-like worker off-the-court. The fact that he *was* able to take on multiple defenders in defenses built entirely to stop him and he was still able to get his shot off or get someone else a shot, to a somewhat surprising amount of success. That is extremely crucial in the NBA. It's something this current Pacer team lacks sorely.

The negatives that were focused on were things that *we don't need*. We have versatility on this team. We have spot-up shooters. We have rebounders. We have defensive guys. What we *don't* have is a killer-instinct, isolation offensive player that we can dump the ball off to and get us a bucket against a tough defense as the game is on the line. It was the most glaring weakness this team had in the playoffs... as evidenced by the fact that we dominated the Bulls for the first 3 quarters of almost every single game, and lost it in the fourth quarter (to, you guessed it, a guy who could isolate and more importantly, draw additional defenders) when we couldn't generate a bucket within our team offense. I know people frown upon isolation plays as selfish, but it's a very necessary part of the game to incorporate in spots. The problem occurs when you *depend* on it. But you don't want to ignore it completely, either.

This draft isn't terribly strong, and we're not drafting terribly high. The expectation of getting a starter from this draft isn't likely. We're likely going to get a situational player. The situation we struggle at most, imo, is isolation. That's why I advocate getting someone like Brooks.

My thoughts exactly.

Here's a question for you... if Klay Thompson and Brooks are both available at 15, which one do you take? Brooks looks like he could turn into a solid iso guy, while Thompson seems to be in that Reggie Miller/Ray Allen mold where you could run him through a wall of screens and get him quick shots off the curl... both seem to potentially possess that killer mentality...

PR07
06-20-2011, 01:55 PM
Burks actually can pass the ball which makes him better IMO.

For a team like the Pacers? I'm not so sure.

Pacers need a guy who can not only make the shot (Brandon Rush), but a guy who's willing to take the shot (not Brandon Rush). When you look at Larry Bird's last attempt at an acquisition, it was for OJ Mayo. A pretty good all around scoring guard with some flare to his game who was also regarded in one word by his head coach, Lionel Hollins, as "a shooter".

This leads me to believe that the Pacers' guy is either Marshon or Jimmer. I know...I know..that's not exactly going out on a limb, but in theory, it's the best hunch I can think of.

Reginald
06-20-2011, 01:56 PM
Burks actually can pass the ball which makes him better IMO.

How do you figure? The Pacers lost close games last season because no one wanted to take that lost shot. The Pacers lost the series against the Bulls because no one wanted to take that lost. Distributing the ball to someone else isn't our team's main problem; creating and making big shots is.

The Sleeze
06-20-2011, 02:10 PM
Burks struggles shooting. I think that should rule him out for us. If we are drafting a SG, we are probably going to want a scorer. We already have Dahntay Jones for the "can't shoot" stopper.

Actually Burks had a better field goal percentage than Klay Thompson, and was even with Marshon Brooks.

Alec Burks: Fr-54%, So-47%
Klay Thompson: Fr-42%, So-41%, Jr-44%
Marshon Brooks: Fr-38%, So-44%, Jr-47%, Sr-48%

Klay is a better 3-point shooter, but you can't say that Burks can't shoot when he had high-40's, low-50's FG %.

PR07
06-20-2011, 02:15 PM
Actually Burks a better field goal percentage than Klay Thompson.

Alec Burks: Fr-54%, So-47%
Klay Thompson: Fr-42%, So-41%, Jr-44%

Klay is a way better 3-point shooter, but you can't say that Burks can't shoot when he had high-40's, low-50's FG %.

I don't like Thompson for us either. He's looks more like a spot-up shooter from distance at this point in his career. Pacers need to find the right combination between the two of someone who can go inside and outside.

Gamble1
06-20-2011, 02:18 PM
How do you figure? The Pacers lost close games last season because no one wanted to take that lost shot. The Pacers lost the series against the Bulls because no one wanted to take that lost. Distributing the ball to someone else isn't our team's main problem; creating and making big shots is.
And you think Brooks is that guy for us in the near future and I personally would rather sign/trade for another guy who is NBA proven. Burks to me is a much better player at his age than Brooks overall. Burks is a better defender better BBIQ and a better passer. His shooting is suspect right now but that could easily change in the near future.

Look at what Brooks did in his second year and compare that to Burks. ITs not even close to me.

I think relying on a rookie to close out games for you is fools gold especially in the playoffs which you are suggesting. If we draft Brooks I would still want to sign a guy to fullfill the closing role. Burks to me is just the better prospect overall.

Gamble1
06-20-2011, 02:26 PM
Actually Burks had a better field goal percentage than Klay Thompson, and was even with Marshon Brooks.

Alec Burks: Fr-54%, So-47%
Klay Thompson: Fr-42%, So-41%, Jr-44%
Marshon Brooks: Fr-38%, So-44%, Jr-47%, Sr-48%

Klay is a better 3-point shooter, but you can't say that Burks can't shoot when he had high-40's, low-50's FG %.
Thats because he could beat his man better and get into the lane at a pretty high rate leading to more high percentage shots.

PR07
06-20-2011, 02:35 PM
I'll raise this point on Burks. If you have two "project guards" in George and Stephenson, do you really want another one?

Kid Minneapolis
06-20-2011, 02:40 PM
My thoughts exactly.

Here's a question for you... if Klay Thompson and Brooks are both available at 15, which one do you take? Brooks looks like he could turn into a solid iso guy, while Thompson seems to be in that Reggie Miller/Ray Allen mold where you could run him through a wall of screens and get him quick shots off the curl... both seem to potentially possess that killer mentality...

Well, I've been tooting Brooks' horn for a week now. I think they are completely different players.

On the topic of Klay, I'm not as high on him as others. To be honest, his game is rather non-descript to me. I've seen a lot of Reggie Miller comparisons, and I just wanna go on record as saying, "I don't see it." First of all, Reggie was very unique, stylistically and physically. I don't see *anyone* being like Reggie. I also don't know about the "killer instinct" that Klay evidently has been linked with Reggie. Klay plays more like... I dunno... Gordon Heyward? Danny Granger? A smaller, less talented version of those guys? I see him being a situational role player in the NBA...

Klay has been arrested and has been associated with weed. Not exactly endearing.

At the end of the day, I think Brooks fills a need with our team better than Klay. I feel like Klay is in the same vein as Granger, Dunleavy, even George, and we don't need another.

Brooks has very good isolation skills and shot creation ability. I think that is what sets him apart as a better fit for what this current team needs. We don't need a Danny Granger-lite.

Gamble1
06-20-2011, 02:42 PM
I'll raise this point on Burks. If you have two "project guards" in George and Stephenson, do you really want another one?
Goerge is not a project IMO. You can easily justify playing him for his defense alone especially if its with the starting 5.

Lance is the 15th man on the roster with a ton of talent. If he pans out then fine if not then you lost your 15th man and no big deal. Burks is much less of project than Lance and he is an upgrade.

The Pacers have 10 guys signed for next year so having 3 projects in the wings is no big deal IMO.

Kid Minneapolis
06-20-2011, 02:43 PM
I think relying on a rookie to close out games for you is fools gold especially in the playoffs which you are suggesting. If we draft Brooks I would still want to sign a guy to fullfill the closing role. Burks to me is just the better prospect overall.

1) How long does a guy stay a rookie? lol... That's only a concern if you feel like we're a serious contender in his rookie season, which leads to:
2) You think we're ready to go to the Finals next year? We don't have a year or two for a guy to grow?

Gamble1
06-20-2011, 02:53 PM
Well, I've been tooting Brooks' horn for a week now. I think they are completely different players.

On the topic of Klay, I'm not as high on him as others. To be honest, his game is rather non-descript to me. I've seen a lot of Reggie Miller comparisons, and I just wanna go on record as saying, "I don't see it." First of all, Reggie was very unique, stylistically and physically. I don't see *anyone* being like Reggie. I also don't know about the "killer instinct" that Klay evidently has been linked with Reggie. Klay plays more like... I dunno... Gordon Heyward? Danny Granger? A smaller, less talented version of those guys? I see him being a situational role player in the NBA...

Klay has been arrested and has been associated with weed. Not exactly endearing.

At the end of the day, I think Brooks fills a need with our team better than Klay. I feel like Klay is in the same vein as Granger, Dunleavy, even George, and we don't need another.

Brooks has very good isolation skills and shot creation ability. I think that is what sets him apart as a better fit for what this current team needs. We don't need a Danny Granger-lite.
I think the only guy he compares to in that list is Dunleavy. He certainly doesn't have PG's game or Grangers for that matter.

IF we draft Klay he could function well in the second unit if we run him off of screens like we did with Dun.

PR07
06-20-2011, 02:54 PM
I think the only guy he compares to in that list is Dunleavy. He certainly doesn't have PG's game or Grangers for that matter.

IF we draft Klay he could function well in the second unit if we run him off of screens like we did with Dun.

Yeah, Klay doesn't have the atleticism of either of those guys, and that's why I can't make that comparison. The Dunleavy one is fair however.

Gamble1
06-20-2011, 02:57 PM
1) How long does a guy stay a rookie? lol... That's only a concern if you feel like we're a serious contender in his rookie season, which leads to:
2) You think we're ready to go to the Finals next year? We don't have a year or two for a guy to grow?
How long do guys mentally stay rookies?

Well for some a long time and certainly Brooks hasn't necessarily proved me wrong in my skepticism. The guy had one good year out of 4 in a high paced offense in a bad conference.

Again if we draft him then I still want a NBA proven closer.

CableKC
06-20-2011, 03:02 PM
At the end of the day, I think Brooks fills a need with our team better than Klay. I feel like Klay is in the same vein as Granger, Dunleavy, even George, and we don't need another.

Brooks has very good isolation skills and shot creation ability. I think that is what sets him apart as a better fit for what this current team needs. We don't need a Danny Granger-lite.
Could you expand on what you mean by "shot creation ability"?

As in....the ability to create for "others" as opposed to the ability to create for "himself"?

My impression from what I have read is that Brooks maybe able to create for "himself" ( which is something that we need ) but not able to create for "others" ( which is something that we REALLY REALLY need ).

Kid Minneapolis
06-20-2011, 03:07 PM
Could you expand on what you mean by "shot creation ability"?

As in....the ability to create for "others" as opposed to the ability to create for "himself"?

My impression from what I have read is that Brooks maybe able to create for "himself" ( which is something that we need ) but not able to create for "others" ( which is something that we REALLY REALLY need ).

Why do we have Darren Collison? Isn't that why we brought him in? Are we giving up on that?

Why do people place so little value on being able to create for himself?

CableKC
06-20-2011, 03:07 PM
2) You think we're ready to go to the Finals next year? We don't have a year or two for a guy to grow?
I think that Bird is ready to make that next step to not only return to the Playoffs but to make us a perennial Playoff contender. This IMHO ranges anywhere from being a sure-fire #5 to #8 Playoff Contender ( which is possible ) to a Championship Caliber Team ( which is not likely ). My guess is that with the 1st round pick...which is different then the 2nd round pick...Bird wants a Player that will impact the Team this season as opposed to one that has the luxury of growing into his role. Where Brooks falls into that is unknown. As I have mentioned before.....we know he can play "me" ball...the question is whether he can play "we" ball.

bphil
06-20-2011, 03:07 PM
Could you expand on what you mean by "shot creation ability"?

As in....the ability to create for "others" as opposed to the ability to create for "himself"?

My impression from what I have read is that Brooks maybe able to create for "himself" ( which is something that we need ) but not able to create for "others" ( which is something that we REALLY REALLY need ).

You're not going to get both at #15 in this draft. In fact, you'll be lucky as hell to get one.

The Sleeze
06-20-2011, 03:11 PM
It seems a lot of the reports on Brooks have him being very Westbrook-esque.

The question is did he have to be that way playing for Providence, since they relied on him for almost everything.

I actually like Brooks and would be very happy with the pick, but if Burks is available(which I doubt) I would take him instead.

Kid Minneapolis
06-20-2011, 03:11 PM
How long do guys mentally stay rookies?

Well for some a long time and certainly Brooks hasn't necessarily proved me wrong in my skepticism. The guy had one good year out of 4 in a high paced offense in a bad conference.

Again if we draft him then I still want a NBA proven closer.

Well, we can go based off observations of actual footage and abilities, or we can go off your crystal ball that he will remain a mental rookie for awhile and your claim that he hasn't proved you wrong yet about that despite having not yet been a rookie yet! :hmm:

Kid Minneapolis
06-20-2011, 03:14 PM
Where Brooks falls into that is unknown.

Doesn't that describe the entire draft class? Don't most people qualify 4-year guys as more "NBA ready" and capable of coming right in than a young, promising, raw 18-year old coming out after his freshman year?

I see your case if we trade the pick for a NBA veteran, but if we're keeping the pick, going with a 4-year guy in the 1st round generally works out decently in terms of production in the first year than some younger, more raw "upside" pick.

CableKC
06-20-2011, 03:20 PM
Why do we have Darren Collison? Isn't that why we brought him in? Are we giving up on that?
Not exactly....I do not doubt that this is one of the skills that DC is supposed to be doing....but getting a Player that can create for "others"...which is why Bird "apparently" went after Mayo.


Why do people place so little value on being able to create for himself?
I'm not putting "little value" into his ability to create for "himself"....I'm saying that there appears to be a greater need to get a Player that can create for "others".

As mentioned....I have little doubt that he can create for "himself" or even score in isolation.....but that's not the only aspect of any Player's game that I am concerned about. Let me ask again, can Brooks create for "others"?

How effective is he playing "off the ball"?

If the answer is "not very good at creating for others and he's not very effective playing off the ball", then I'll pass on the guy.

Kid Minneapolis
06-20-2011, 03:23 PM
That's fine then. You can think that, everyone's entitled to opinions. Normally a guy who can create his own and create for others to an NBA-level of caliber is a top 5 pick. I, for one, feel that your expectations far exceed the 15th pick of a mediocre draft, and my expectations are a little more in-line within the context, but whatever. That's life.

Gamble1
06-20-2011, 03:27 PM
Well, we can go based off observations of actual footage and abilities, or we can go off your crystal ball that he will remain a mental rookie for awhile and your claim that he hasn't proved you wrong yet about that despite having not yet been a rookie yet! :hmm:
I swear I am posting to his agent right now!!

Seriously you must have a dog in this fight for promoting this kid so hard.

I think T-birds actual footage is much better than any on this board so what am I to believe. I'll tell you one thing its not that he going to be the closer that you are promoting in years one or two.

Kid Minneapolis
06-20-2011, 03:29 PM
I support his selection, if that's what you mean. Your statement just hinted that he likely will remain a mental rookie for awhile, and I feel that's pretty hard to predict at this point in time.