CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: quidinqui33 on March 08, 2013, 12:05:52 PM
-
ESPN has joined the discussion:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/PerDiem-130308/nba-boston-celtics-really-better-rajon-rondo
When the Boston Celtics lost at Portland on Feb. 24 to drop to 1-3 on their West Coast trip, the notion the team was better without injured All-Star Rajon Rondo was a distant memory. The next night, however, the Celtics pulled out a win at Utah to jump-start a four-game winning streak. Entering this weekend's pair of games on national TV, Boston is a season-high six games above .500 and looking to move up in the Eastern Conference standings.
The Celtics have now played 17 games since Rondo tore his ACL in Atlanta, plus five more he missed because of suspension or injury before going down for the season. That's enough of a sample to suggest their initial success without him is not a fluke. Boston has gone 15-7 in those games as compared with 18-20 with Rondo in the lineup. But the numbers show that if the Celtics are indeed playing better without Rondo, it's not for the reasons you think.
Check out the chart comparing Boston's advanced statistics this season with and without Rondo.
WITH AND WITHOUT RONDO
Stat Rondo No Rondo
Win % .473 .682
Offensive Rating 104.6 106.9
Defensive Rating 105.7 102.0
Adjusted Offense -2.0 -0.7
Adjusted Defense 0.7 5.5
Adjusted Rating -2.2 4.0
Although the Celtics did benefit from an easy schedule to win their first seven games without Rondo, six of them at home, that has since evened out with seven of the team's past eight games on the road. Overall, Boston has now faced slightly more difficult opposition since Rondo's injury -- including Tuesday's last-second win at Indiana, the team's most challenging victory of the season given opponent and location.
After taking that into account, the Celtics have played much better without Rondo -- a difference of 6.2 points per game against average opposition. But most of that improvement -- more than three-quarters of it, in fact -- has come at the defensive end of the floor. Let's take a closer look at each end to figure out how Boston has been a different team since Rondo's injury.
OFFENSE
By going from Rondo dominating the ball on offense to sharing ballhandling responsibilities among several players, the Celtics have become a more dangerous offense, the narrative goes. Not quite. Really, after a stretch of hot shooting during the initial seven-game winning streak, when they made 50.8 percent of their 2-point tries, Boston has been the same below-average offense. Across the board, their statistics are nearly identical to when Rondo is in the lineup.
Hollinger's Playoff Odds
Which teams do the odds favor? Check our projections daily. Playoff Odds »
The Celtics have been able to fill Rondo's playmaking role by committee. Thanks to seven players averaging at least two assists per game, Boston has handed out assists on 61.8 percent of its field goals -- down only marginally from the 63.1 percent of baskets that were assisted with Rondo. And the Celtics' assist rate has actually gotten slightly better since Rondo was sidelined.
Give much of the credit to Paul Pierce for showing a playmaking side of his game that hasn't been seen in years. Pierce has averaged a team-high 6.5 assists in Rondo's absence, nearly 40 percent more assists per minute than he's ever handed out in his career. Though Pierce is turning the ball over a bit more frequently because of the extra responsibility, it hasn't affected his scoring output.
If you're looking for evidence that Rondo's style is detrimental to his team, it doesn't really exist. Boston is still the same offense, depending heavily on long 2-pointers that are difficult to make at a high rate of efficiency. The Celtics are still more likely to cheer for the Lakers than get an offensive rebound and rarely get to the free throw line. And they still overcome it because of their defense -- now more than ever.
DEFENSE
Before Rondo's injury, Boston was a very good defense. According to NBA.com/Stats, the team ranked seventh in the league in defensive rating when Rondo was sidelined. Since then, they've been elite. The Celtics are holding opponents 5.5 points per 100 possessions below their usual offensive rating. Over the course of the season, only two teams (the Indiana Pacers and the Memphis Grizzlies) have been so stingy on defense.
Boston has offset a decline on the defensive glass by sending teams to the foul line less frequently. Nearly all of the defensive improvement can be traced to how opponents are shooting against the Celtics. Teams are making just 45.4 percent of their 2-point attempts, down from 47.9 percent, and 31.1 percent of their 3s, down from 35.0 percent. If maintained for a full season, that would be the NBA's best 3-point defense; only the Pacers have defended 2s better.
Explaining this effect is more difficult than observing it. After all, Rondo is a four-time All-Defensive Team selection. His defense appeared to slip this season, but before Rondo's injury Boston had shown no tendency to defend better with him on the bench. That suggests the real changes lie elsewhere.
First, the Celtics have benefited from the return of defensive ace Avery Bradley after surgery on both shoulders. In the month Bradley and Rondo played together, they were just as stout defensively as they have been since Rondo went down. Secondly, Boston has figured out how to defend when a different star -- center Kevin Garnett -- is on the bench. During the first two months of the season, the Celtics' D sprung leaks every time Garnett rested. Since then, as NBA.com's John Schuhmann noted on Twitter earlier this week, they've actually defended slightly better when Garnett is off the floor.
THE PLAYOFFS
Taken together, the numbers indicate that Boston is playing better without Rondo, but not that the Celtics are playing better because Rondo is out. It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
The Celtics' ability to win without Rondo is good news for the next few months. When Rondo went down, conventional wisdom had it that they might survive his absence the rest of the regular season but would be unable to duplicate their Rondo-led run to last year's Eastern Conference finals. Their performance thus far might disprove that assumption. Boston's level of play without Rondo, 4.0 points better than an average team, would put the C's ahead of Indiana (+3.4) and New York (+3.0) this season. Only Miami (+6.8) has been better in the Eastern Conference.
Average offense and elite defense has historically been a powerful combination for the Celtics in the postseason. They'll surely have to win at least one series on the road to get back to the conference finals, but that has never been a problem for Boston before. Tuesday's win at Indiana was one indicator that the Celtics can still win anywhere against anyone. A strong performance Sunday at Oklahoma City on ABC would only add to the evidence that Boston is a threat without Rondo.
-
Thanks for the article.
I'll say the sample size remains way too small to determine.
-
They've been playing better since Rondo went out but I don't think they're a better team without Rondo.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
TP for an excellent point. I also am confident that Rondo will be actively shopped for a big in the off-season, a decision I would totally support.
That's an interesting, albeit flawed, article that totally fails to account for several factors that are key in the Celtics' resurgence - vastly improved offensive ball movement, shots off primary and secondary transition, what we used to call "rim attacks," and, most importantly, opposition baskets off defensive breakdowns. Our defensive rotations simply aren't getting broken down as often out front.
It makes some quality points - the defense has improved with Garnett on the bench, for example.
And it does get at the point made by the above poster: It isn't about how talented Rondo is, it's about how necessary Rondo is to the success of the Boston Celtics.
-
we need Rondo healthy ASAP ....
so we can trade him and Bass for a lottery pick or serious big man ...
we need to play a least another 150 games to decide. ;D
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
To add to this point, I think there is another question that isn't being asked enough. It's not as simple as, are we better without Rondo. The real question should be, and I think DA knew this all the time, would we be be better by trading Rondo for another piece (perhaps a big man)?
To me, that last question is fairly clear.
-
The problem with any of these hypothetical comparisons is that they don't really allow for a parallel possibility for improvement if Rondo had stayed healthy. It's pretty cut and dry that the Celtics are playing better ball now than they were before he got hurt, but it's also reasonable to expect that the team would have figured out how to play with each other more effectively if he was still around.
In the end, just be happy that they are playing a good brand of basketball, and the season is not a lost cause.
-
The with any of these hypothetical comparisons is that they don't really allow for a parallel possibility for improvement if Rondo had stayed healthy. It's pretty cut and dry that the Celtics are playing better ball now than they were before he got hurt.
Agreed.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
TP for posting the article. It's an interesting read, and in the above-quoted post you make a good point as well:
If a team loses its All-Star point guard, and not only doesn't replace him with another All-Star-level player but doesn't even replace him with an actual, honest-to-goodness point guard, yet the team improves in terms of win-loss (which is what ultimately matters), that tells me that something is severely lacking regarding the original situation with the All-Star point guard.
What is that thing? I think it's the "involvement" factor. Regardless of whose fault it was, the other players used to think that Rondo must have the ball most of the time, and sure, Rondo would make good passes to open guys in their favorite spots, but unless you were that guy on that play, you probably didn't touch the ball; you probably just stood around, feeling useless. Now we have most players getting lots of touches, including guys who should have the ball a good deal, such as Jeff Green, and when everyone feels involved and invested, they're more aggressive in taking ownership of the product, which in this case means that guys are being aggressive, taking initiative more, and moving the ball more.
That, and the Bradley-Lee defensive combo is more effective than the Bradley-Rondo combo.
-
I technically don't even count the losses vs Charlotte, Denver, LA and Portland, because those all happened arguably due to Barbosa being injured and the team transitioning to Crawford off the bench as an alternative. As far as I'm concerned, since Rondo went down and we had 4 healthy contributing guards in his wake... this team has been brilliant.
-
The problem with any of these hypothetical comparisons is that they don't really allow for a parallel possibility for improvement if Rondo had stayed healthy. It's pretty cut and dry that the Celtics are playing better ball now than they were before he got hurt, but it's also reasonable to expect that the team would have figured out how to play with each other more effectively if he was still around.
In the end, just be happy that they are playing a good brand of basketball, and the season is not a lost cause.
The problem I'm having with these snap judgments is one of cause and effect. Rondo is out, a fact. The Celtics are winning more, a fact.
However, Rondo being out being the cause of the Celtics improved play is not a fact. This is an opinion. Nothing wrong with expressing opinions here, but don't expect everyone to agree with you and don't get upset when they don't.
-
I technically don't even count the losses vs Charlotte, Denver, LA and Portland, because those all happened arguably due to Barbosa being injured and the team transitioning to Crawford off the bench as an alternative. As far as I'm concerned, since Rondo went down and we had 4 healthy contributing guards in his wake... this team has been brilliant.
We could make an excuse for every game. No. A loss is a loss, no matter why.
-
The problem with any of these hypothetical comparisons is that they don't really allow for a parallel possibility for improvement if Rondo had stayed healthy. It's pretty cut and dry that the Celtics are playing better ball now than they were before he got hurt, but it's also reasonable to expect that the team would have figured out how to play with each other more effectively if he was still around.
In the end, just be happy that they are playing a good brand of basketball, and the season is not a lost cause.
TP, great point.
-
The problem with any of these hypothetical comparisons is that they don't really allow for a parallel possibility for improvement if Rondo had stayed healthy. It's pretty cut and dry that the Celtics are playing better ball now than they were before he got hurt, but it's also reasonable to expect that the team would have figured out how to play with each other more effectively if he was still around.
In the end, just be happy that they are playing a good brand of basketball, and the season is not a lost cause.
The problem I'm having with these snap judgments is one of cause and effect. Rondo is out, a fact. The Celtics are winning more, a fact.
However, Rondo being out being the cause of the Celtics improved play is not a fact. This is an opinion. Nothing wrong with expressing opinions here, but don't expect everyone to agree with you and don't get upset when they don't.
yup
I definitely was not liking (or enjoying watching) the type of hoops they were playing before he got hurt, but I've seen Rondo be a central figure in too many Celtics' streaks of awesomeness to discount the notion that he could be part or another one. I don't really have a problem with pointing fingers at Rondo for the way the team was playing because that's what we do.
-
Here's the flaw in "this team is better without Rondo" argument - does this current team - with a healthy Avery Bradley, a properly integrated Lee, Jet, and Green, and Doc's focus on a more fluid offense - have a higher ceiling than one that also includes a healthy Rondo? And for that matter a healthy Sullinger? To me, you can't answer that definitively because we haven't gotten to see the latter in play.
I see a lot of folks blaming Rondo for stifling Boston's ball movement, but I never thought it was fair that Rondo was given all of the blame for that. As others have pointed out, we haven't had competent ballhandlers outside of Rondo and Paul the past few years and the team didn't realy adapt well to having more options at the beginning of the season - we were trying to play Jet in Ray's old role instead of allowing him to play pick & roll more. Jeff was still playing passively. Doc & co were forced to make changes that fixed those things, changes that probably should have taken place earlier. Who's to say Rondo can't adapt? He hasn't always been ball-dominant, but he became so in part because the team needed him to and was building offense around that.
-
the horse is more than brutally beaten beyond its demise at this point
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?
No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!
This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?
No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!
This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.
So by your logic, if we fail to make the conference finals or can't force it 7 games as we did last year, is this team still better without Rondo?
That's gonna be the kicker for me - just how many of these "we're better without Rondo" turn into "if we had Rondo..." once the playoffs hit.
Also, I think our defense going from good to elite as more to do with Avery coming back and rounding into shape.
-
before everyone gets carried away, i do want to make the qualifier (just so that it's clear with everyone)...
Rondo is a special talent. He is a deserving all-star.
That said, i do agree with the thought of "how impt is Rondo to the team"? i've generally been in the camp of trading Rondo but again, since he's a legit all-star, we should be getting extremely high-quality talent back as well.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?
No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!
This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.
So by your logic, if we fail to make the conference finals or can't force it 7 games as we did last year, is this team still better without Rondo?
That's gonna be the kicker for me - just how many of these "we're better without Rondo" turn into "if we had Rondo..." once the playoffs hit.
Also, I think our defense going from good to elite as more to do with Avery coming back and rounding into shape.
You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, "How important is rondo to this team?" Going by the numbers, the records, and just watching the games, not that important at all and completely replaceable. If he isn't needed why keep him when you can trade him for a piece we actually do really need? A serious upgrade at the PF position.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?
No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!
This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.
So by your logic, if we fail to make the conference finals or can't force it 7 games as we did last year, is this team still better without Rondo?
That's gonna be the kicker for me - just how many of these "we're better without Rondo" turn into "if we had Rondo..." once the playoffs hit.
Also, I think our defense going from good to elite as more to do with Avery coming back and rounding into shape.
You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, "How important is rondo to this team?" Going by the numbers, the records, and just watching the games, not that important at all and completely replaceable. If he isn't needed why keep him when you can trade him for a piece we actually do really need? A serious upgrade at the PF position.
Sure, they'd likely be better with Rondo in the playoffs versus not having him for the playoffs, but the real question is would they be better in the future with Rondo, for the regular season and the playoffs, or without Rondo but with whatever big (presumably) they could trade him for? Seems like Danny's been willing to trade him for several years now and the last couple of months have likely only reinforced that willingness.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?
No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!
This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.
So by your logic, if we fail to make the conference finals or can't force it 7 games as we did last year, is this team still better without Rondo?
That's gonna be the kicker for me - just how many of these "we're better without Rondo" turn into "if we had Rondo..." once the playoffs hit.
Also, I think our defense going from good to elite as more to do with Avery coming back and rounding into shape.
You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, "How important is rondo to this team?" Going by the numbers, the records, and just watching the games, not that important at all and completely replaceable. If he isn't needed why keep him when you can trade him for a piece we actually do really need? A serious upgrade at the PF position.
Sure, they'd likely be better with Rondo in the playoffs versus not having him for the playoffs, but the real question is would they be better in the future with Rondo, for the regular season and the playoffs, or without Rondo but with whatever big (presumably) they could trade him for? Seems like Danny's been willing to trade him for several years now and the last couple of months have likely only reinforced that willingness.
With a Good above average big next to KG, no doubt.
-
This entire conundrum will be evident come the playoffs. The Celtics might be playing better without Rondo in the regular season. The Celtics have had a lot of players pick up their play, that, before the injury, was not to the level it should have been.
But whether they are actually a better team without Rondo will be answered in the playoffs. In the playoffs, rotations shrink, starters(the best players) play longer minutes, half court defenses tighten, the pressure to win is ratcheted up, and play gets a lot more physical. Playoff basketball is about matchups, defense, and star players performing like stars. Removing a star player from your team, a player most in the league do not have a good match up for, is not going to make them a better team.
Rondo is back next year along with Pierce, Bradley, KG, Sully, Lee and a couple others.
-
Despite the good record and good play without Rondo, I don't think that he is as replaceable as many seem to believe.
Paul Pierce, in particular, has in many ways been able to replace Rondo. Bradley, Lee, or Terry are not the replacement point guard. Paul Pierce is. He is a great player who has taken on the challenge of being a facilitator and a creator in our point guard's absence, as well as a scorer, and he's done a brilliant job of it. We are lucky to have him. I remember being of the opinion when Rondo went down that the only way for this team to stay in contention was for Paul Pierce to step up and be able to consistently lead the team in a point forward role. Up to this point, he's been able to do that.
Hopefully he can keep it up, and he and KG have enough left in the tank to lead us to another improbable run. They won't be able to do it alone. The talented depth that Danny has been able to acquire will need to be big to help them out, particularly Bradley and Green. Everyone else will have to play their roles as well.
This brings me to the point about Rondo's alleged "replacability." Paul Pierce and KG won't be around and playing at a high level for much longer. I like Bradley, Lee, and Green, but none of those guys have that elite ability to create shots either for themselves or for others like a Rajon Rondo or a Paul Pierce do.
I'd love to acquire a promising young big, but none of the names that I've heard suggested as potential trade partners for Rondo are guys that I believe can lead this team to title contention without an elite shot creating guard or wing.
As far as I'm concerned, the smart move on Danny's part will be to continue to be patient, continue to acquire and develop talented young assets to play alongside Rondo as we continue through this rebuilding or "reloading" phase, and then try to flip some for that talented, promising big when some of our assets have matured a little more, or simply find that promising big in the draft or free agency in the meantime.
Panicking and giving away our best young player for limited return based on a small sample of games led by our aging superstars could very well end up being a gigantic mistake for the future of the organization. I don't want to see Danny make that mistake.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?
No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!
This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.
So by your logic, if we fail to make the conference finals or can't force it 7 games as we did last year, is this team still better without Rondo?
That's gonna be the kicker for me - just how many of these "we're better without Rondo" turn into "if we had Rondo..." once the playoffs hit.
Also, I think our defense going from good to elite as more to do with Avery coming back and rounding into shape.
You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, "How important is rondo to this team?" Going by the numbers, the records, and just watching the games, not that important at all and completely replaceable. If he isn't needed why keep him when you can trade him for a piece we actually do really need? A serious upgrade at the PF position.
If I go on the evidence of the last few years, I'd say he's pretty important.
I've already stated previously in this thread that I don't buy the assumption that adding a healthy Rondo to this current incarnation o f the team wouldn't make us even better. If Rondo hadn't gone down, can we say unequivocally that the team wouldn't have figured it out? They showed signs of improvement before Rondo went down and just after Avery came back that people are glossing over because it doesn't fit the "we're better without Rondo" narrative.
-
Despite the good record and good play without Rondo, I don't think that he is as replaceable as many seem to believe.
Paul Pierce, in particular, has in many ways been able to replace Rondo. Bradley, Lee, or Terry are not the replacement point guard. Paul Pierce is. He is a great player who has taken on the challenge of being a facilitator and a creator in our point guard's absence, as well as a scorer, and he's done a brilliant job of it. We are lucky to have him. I remember being of the opinion when Rondo went down that the only way for this team to stay in contention was for Paul Pierce to step up and be able to consistently lead the team in a point forward role. Up to this point, he's been able to do that.
Hopefully he can keep it up, and he and KG have enough left in the tank to lead us to another improbable run. They won't be able to do it alone. The talented depth that Danny has been able to acquire will need to be big to help them out, particularly Bradley and Green. Everyone else will have to play their roles as well.
This brings me to the point about Rondo's alleged "replacability." Paul Pierce and KG won't be around and playing at a high level for much longer. I like Bradley, Lee, and Green, but none of those guys have that elite ability to create shots either for themselves or for others like a Rajon Rondo or a Paul Pierce do.
I'd love to acquire a promising young big, but none of the names that I've heard suggested as potential trade partners for Rondo are guys that I believe can lead this team to title contention without an elite shot creating guard or wing.
As far as I'm concerned, the smart move on Danny's part will be to continue to be patient, continue to acquire and develop talented young assets to play alongside Rondo as we continue through this rebuilding or "reloading" phase, and then try to flip some for that talented, promising big when some of our assets have matured a little more, or simply find that promising big in the draft or free agency in the meantime.
Panicking and giving away our best young player for limited return based on a small sample of games led by our aging superstars could very well end up being a gigantic mistake for the future of the organization. I don't want to see Danny make that mistake.
TP. Very well said.
And I agree about Paul. He's regularly flirting with triple doubles and is playing really great overall basketball. That doesn't leave a ton of room for error.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?
No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!
This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.
So by your logic, if we fail to make the conference finals or can't force it 7 games as we did last year, is this team still better without Rondo?
That's gonna be the kicker for me - just how many of these "we're better without Rondo" turn into "if we had Rondo..." once the playoffs hit.
Also, I think our defense going from good to elite as more to do with Avery coming back and rounding into shape.
You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, "How important is rondo to this team?" Going by the numbers, the records, and just watching the games, not that important at all and completely replaceable. If he isn't needed why keep him when you can trade him for a piece we actually do really need? A serious upgrade at the PF position.
If I go on the evidence of the last few years, I'd say he's pretty important.
I've already stated previously in this thread that I don't buy the assumption that adding a healthy Rondo to this current incarnation o f the team wouldn't make us even better. If Rondo hadn't gone down, can we say unequivocally that the team wouldn't have figured it out? They showed signs of improvement before Rondo went down and just after Avery came back that people are glossing over because it doesn't fit the "we're better without Rondo" narrative.
The celtics were riding a 6 game losing streak when rondo went down. If that's your idea of improvement then whatever. Even the 6 game winning streak we went on was no where near as impressive as the 7 game winning streak we went on post rondo injury.
Yeah we won 6 straight but you could tell by watching the games something still just wasn't right, we didn't look that good winning those games. Plus you can't look back on previous years, this is a new team and plus we haven't really had much evidence to go on playing without rondo.
This year is the absolute perfect opportunity to see how much rondo is really needed. No excuses, just watch the games and lets see how we do the rest of the year without him. So far, we're doing just fine.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?
No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!
This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.
So by your logic, if we fail to make the conference finals or can't force it 7 games as we did last year, is this team still better without Rondo?
That's gonna be the kicker for me - just how many of these "we're better without Rondo" turn into "if we had Rondo..." once the playoffs hit.
Also, I think our defense going from good to elite as more to do with Avery coming back and rounding into shape.
You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, "How important is rondo to this team?" Going by the numbers, the records, and just watching the games, not that important at all and completely replaceable. If he isn't needed why keep him when you can trade him for a piece we actually do really need? A serious upgrade at the PF position.
If I go on the evidence of the last few years, I'd say he's pretty important.
I've already stated previously in this thread that I don't buy the assumption that adding a healthy Rondo to this current incarnation o f the team wouldn't make us even better. If Rondo hadn't gone down, can we say unequivocally that the team wouldn't have figured it out? They showed signs of improvement before Rondo went down and just after Avery came back that people are glossing over because it doesn't fit the "we're better without Rondo" narrative.
I think the other part of the articale they're glossing over is that the team figured out how to defend with KG on the bench. That's been a big improvement without which, there would be none of this discussion -- everyone would be still complaining about this team underperforming.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?
No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!
This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.
So by your logic, if we fail to make the conference finals or can't force it 7 games as we did last year, is this team still better without Rondo?
That's gonna be the kicker for me - just how many of these "we're better without Rondo" turn into "if we had Rondo..." once the playoffs hit.
Also, I think our defense going from good to elite as more to do with Avery coming back and rounding into shape.
You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, "How important is rondo to this team?" Going by the numbers, the records, and just watching the games, not that important at all and completely replaceable. If he isn't needed why keep him when you can trade him for a piece we actually do really need? A serious upgrade at the PF position.
If I go on the evidence of the last few years, I'd say he's pretty important.
I've already stated previously in this thread that I don't buy the assumption that adding a healthy Rondo to this current incarnation o f the team wouldn't make us even better. If Rondo hadn't gone down, can we say unequivocally that the team wouldn't have figured it out? They showed signs of improvement before Rondo went down and just after Avery came back that people are glossing over because it doesn't fit the "we're better without Rondo" narrative.
I think the other part of the articale they're glossing over is that the team figured out how to defend with KG on the bench. That's been a big improvement without which, there would be none of this discussion -- everyone would be still complaining about this team underperforming.
I think the part you're glossing over is how rondo is clearly not being missed in any area of the game. KG is obviously needed for us to be contenders. We have improved with him on the bench but we couldn't be contenders without him playing at all.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
TP for an excellent point. I also am confident that Rondo will be actively shopped for a big in the off-season, a decision I would totally support.
That's an interesting, albeit flawed, article that totally fails to account for several factors that are key in the Celtics' resurgence - vastly improved offensive ball movement, shots off primary and secondary transition, what we used to call "rim attacks," and, most importantly, opposition baskets off defensive breakdowns. Our defensive rotations simply aren't getting broken down as often out front.
It also doesn't take into account the fact that PP and Jet are playing significantly better now that they're healthier, Green's continued recovery from his year off, the fact that Rondo and Sully's injuries led to steady minutes and set rotations that many of the players haven't had all year, or the fact that we've played a lot of bad defenses since he's been out. The info posted doesn't "look under the hood" at all and assumes that the only thing that's changed for the Celts is Rondo being out. I can see why many of the posters here would agree with it.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?
No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!
This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.
So by your logic, if we fail to make the conference finals or can't force it 7 games as we did last year, is this team still better without Rondo?
That's gonna be the kicker for me - just how many of these "we're better without Rondo" turn into "if we had Rondo..." once the playoffs hit.
Also, I think our defense going from good to elite as more to do with Avery coming back and rounding into shape.
You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, "How important is rondo to this team?" Going by the numbers, the records, and just watching the games, not that important at all and completely replaceable. If he isn't needed why keep him when you can trade him for a piece we actually do really need? A serious upgrade at the PF position.
If I go on the evidence of the last few years, I'd say he's pretty important.
I've already stated previously in this thread that I don't buy the assumption that adding a healthy Rondo to this current incarnation o f the team wouldn't make us even better. If Rondo hadn't gone down, can we say unequivocally that the team wouldn't have figured it out? They showed signs of improvement before Rondo went down and just after Avery came back that people are glossing over because it doesn't fit the "we're better without Rondo" narrative.
The celtics were riding a 6 game losing streak when rondo went down. If that's your idea of improvement then whatever. Even the 6 game winning streak we went on was no where near as impressive as the 7 game winning streak we went on post rondo injury.
Yeah we won 6 straight but you could tell by watching the games something still just wasn't right, we didn't look that good winning those games. Plus you can't look back on previous years, this is a new team and plus we haven't really had much evidence to go on playing without rondo.
This year is the absolute perfect opportunity to see how much rondo is really needed. No excuses, just watch the games and lets see how we do the rest of the year without him. So far, we're doing just fine.
So again I ask you, based on you logic if we can't duplicate or exceed last year's playoff run, is this team still better without Rondo?
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?
No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!
This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.
So by your logic, if we fail to make the conference finals or can't force it 7 games as we did last year, is this team still better without Rondo?
That's gonna be the kicker for me - just how many of these "we're better without Rondo" turn into "if we had Rondo..." once the playoffs hit.
Also, I think our defense going from good to elite as more to do with Avery coming back and rounding into shape.
You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, "How important is rondo to this team?" Going by the numbers, the records, and just watching the games, not that important at all and completely replaceable. If he isn't needed why keep him when you can trade him for a piece we actually do really need? A serious upgrade at the PF position.
If I go on the evidence of the last few years, I'd say he's pretty important.
I've already stated previously in this thread that I don't buy the assumption that adding a healthy Rondo to this current incarnation o f the team wouldn't make us even better. If Rondo hadn't gone down, can we say unequivocally that the team wouldn't have figured it out? They showed signs of improvement before Rondo went down and just after Avery came back that people are glossing over because it doesn't fit the "we're better without Rondo" narrative.
The celtics were riding a 6 game losing streak when rondo went down. If that's your idea of improvement then whatever. Even the 6 game winning streak we went on was no where near as impressive as the 7 game winning streak we went on post rondo injury.
Yeah we won 6 straight but you could tell by watching the games something still just wasn't right, we didn't look that good winning those games. Plus you can't look back on previous years, this is a new team and plus we haven't really had much evidence to go on playing without rondo.
This year is the absolute perfect opportunity to see how much rondo is really needed. No excuses, just watch the games and lets see how we do the rest of the year without him. So far, we're doing just fine.
So again I ask you, based on you logic if we can't duplicate or exceed last year's playoff run, is this team still better without Rondo?
Again you're asking the wrong question. That's not what this thread is about. Let me help you out. The question you should be asking is "Is rondo important to this teams success" If rondo looks to be clearly missed in the playoffs Ill call it.
If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is. I didn't think we'd win with rondo so us losing without him won't change my mind on that. Its not as simple as "If we don't go these many games then rondo is missed" You have to actually watch the games to see what's going on.
-
One question that I have is what is the Celtics' record with and without Avery Bradley in the lineup? As other posters have mentioned, the article talks about being able to defend without KG on the floor. How much of that is attributable to Bradley? In watching a limited number of games, Bradley's pressure defense has picked up the entire team and disrupts the opposition to the point that they do not have time to work the ball inside whether KG is on the court or not.
I am of the mindset that Bradley is an elite defensive talent and his presence is more of a cause for the team's turnaround than Rondo's absence. What we may be witnessing is not that Rondo is a detriment, but that he is only the second-most important guard on this team.
To take this a step further, let's say the Lakers and Celtics made the Rondo for Howard swap. The Celtics would be able to move into the future with a starting 5 of Bradley, Lee, Howard, Green and Sully (or some other PF) after the retirement of Pierce and KG. That lineup, while not impressive offensively, would keep the Celts in every game because of their defensive ability. Depending on how they fill out the bench, I am curious how many games a team like that can win...
-
Again you're asking the wrong question. That's not what this thread is about. Let me help you out. The question you should be asking is "Is rondo important to this teams success" If rondo looks to be clearly missed in the playoffs Ill call it.
If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is. I didn't think we'd win with rondo so us losing without him won't change my mind on that. Its not as simple as "If we don't go these many games then rondo is missed" You have to actually watch the games to see what's going on.
That's kind of a cop out answer. If we're missing Rondo the teams we face are more likely to be better than us. If you added a healthy Green and 1-2 healthy shooting guards to last year's team we could have easily made the finals. If Rondo's as unimportant as people claim we should easily be able to duplicate that.
-
Again you're asking the wrong question. That's not what this thread is about. Let me help you out. The question you should be asking is "Is rondo important to this teams success" If rondo looks to be clearly missed in the playoffs Ill call it.
If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is. I didn't think we'd win with rondo so us losing without him won't change my mind on that. Its not as simple as "If we don't go these many games then rondo is missed" You have to actually watch the games to see what's going on.
That's kind of a cop out answer. If we're missing Rondo the teams we face are more likely to be better than us. If you added a healthy Green and 1-2 healthy shooting guards to last year's team we could have easily made the finals. If Rondo's as unimportant as people claim we should easily be able to duplicate that.
And I honestly think we will duplicate it. I think we will go until we run into the heat, if we don't beat the heat tho *Doesn't matter how many games it takes for us to lose* that doesn't mean we miss rondo.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
TP for an excellent point. I also am confident that Rondo will be actively shopped for a big in the off-season, a decision I would totally support.
That's an interesting, albeit flawed, article that totally fails to account for several factors that are key in the Celtics' resurgence - vastly improved offensive ball movement, shots off primary and secondary transition, what we used to call "rim attacks," and, most importantly, opposition baskets off defensive breakdowns. Our defensive rotations simply aren't getting broken down as often out front.
It also doesn't take into account the fact that PP and Jet are playing significantly better now that they're healthier, Green's continued recovery from his year off, the fact that Rondo and Sully's injuries led to steady minutes and set rotations that many of the players haven't had all year, or the fact that we've played a lot of bad defenses since he's been out. The info posted doesn't "look under the hood" at all and assumes that the only thing that's changed for the Celts is Rondo being out. I can see why many of the posters here would agree with it.
Tim you've made these points ad nauseum by now. At best, they're far lighter factors than Rondo's injury. At worst, they're ridiculous (healthier Pierce? huh?).
I just don't get your refusal to believe that Rondo's value to the Cs might not be as high as you want it to be.
Regardless, the writer's point is what matters: Ainge has been shopping Rondo for a dog's age, and the Cs improved play in his absence certainly isn't going to make him stop.
If there are public acknowledgements of a speedy Rondo recovery this summer, I expect the Cs to look far and wide for a move. Rondo will get much harder to move by the trading deadline next season, or even worse, the summer of 2014. If a rebuilding team acquires him, they're going to want two full seasons to convince a grumpy Rondo to stay.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?
No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!
This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.
So by your logic, if we fail to make the conference finals or can't force it 7 games as we did last year, is this team still better without Rondo?
That's gonna be the kicker for me - just how many of these "we're better without Rondo" turn into "if we had Rondo..." once the playoffs hit.
Also, I think our defense going from good to elite as more to do with Avery coming back and rounding into shape.
You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, "How important is rondo to this team?" Going by the numbers, the records, and just watching the games, not that important at all and completely replaceable. If he isn't needed why keep him when you can trade him for a piece we actually do really need? A serious upgrade at the PF position.
If I go on the evidence of the last few years, I'd say he's pretty important.
I've already stated previously in this thread that I don't buy the assumption that adding a healthy Rondo to this current incarnation o f the team wouldn't make us even better. If Rondo hadn't gone down, can we say unequivocally that the team wouldn't have figured it out? They showed signs of improvement before Rondo went down and just after Avery came back that people are glossing over because it doesn't fit the "we're better without Rondo" narrative.
The celtics were riding a 6 game losing streak when rondo went down. If that's your idea of improvement then whatever. Even the 6 game winning streak we went on was no where near as impressive as the 7 game winning streak we went on post rondo injury.
Yeah we won 6 straight but you could tell by watching the games something still just wasn't right, we didn't look that good winning those games. Plus you can't look back on previous years, this is a new team and plus we haven't really had much evidence to go on playing without rondo.
This year is the absolute perfect opportunity to see how much rondo is really needed. No excuses, just watch the games and lets see how we do the rest of the year without him. So far, we're doing just fine.
So again I ask you, based on you logic if we can't duplicate or exceed last year's playoff run, is this team still better without Rondo?
Again you're asking the wrong question. That's not what this thread is about. Let me help you out. The question you should be asking is "Is rondo important to this teams success" If rondo looks to be clearly missed in the playoffs Ill call it.
If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is. I didn't think we'd win with rondo so us losing without him won't change my mind on that. Its not as simple as "If we don't go these many games then rondo is missed" You have to actually watch the games to see what's going on.
You're still dancing around my question, the basis for which you brought into the conversation. You want to make the debate black & white in regards to whether we're better without Rondo. We've won X amount of games since he's went down, we're better. But when others argue there's other significant factors at play, you're not willing to consider it. Yet, when I ask if we don't have the same amount of success in the post season this year as we've had in years past with Rondo playing a vital role, you're ready to introduce other factors."If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is." Do you not see how totalitarian logic could be flawed.
And btw, if I opt to use several years of play to judge Rondo's importance to the team instead of 20 game stretch than I will.
-
Again you're asking the wrong question. That's not what this thread is about. Let me help you out. The question you should be asking is "Is rondo important to this teams success" If rondo looks to be clearly missed in the playoffs Ill call it.
If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is. I didn't think we'd win with rondo so us losing without him won't change my mind on that. Its not as simple as "If we don't go these many games then rondo is missed" You have to actually watch the games to see what's going on.
That's kind of a cop out answer. If we're missing Rondo the teams we face are more likely to be better than us. If you added a healthy Green and 1-2 healthy shooting guards to last year's team we could have easily made the finals. If Rondo's as unimportant as people claim we should easily be able to duplicate that.
And I honestly think we will duplicate it. I think we will go until we run into the heat, if we don't beat the heat tho *Doesn't matter how many games it takes for us to lose* that doesn't mean we miss rondo.
Also you have to look at who last years celtics team beat to get to where they were. Hawks and sixers. If this years team plays better competition you have to take it into consideration. For example, if they lose to a bulls team with rose.
-
Again you're asking the wrong question. That's not what this thread is about. Let me help you out. The question you should be asking is "Is rondo important to this teams success" If rondo looks to be clearly missed in the playoffs Ill call it.
If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is. I didn't think we'd win with rondo so us losing without him won't change my mind on that. Its not as simple as "If we don't go these many games then rondo is missed" You have to actually watch the games to see what's going on.
That's kind of a cop out answer. If we're missing Rondo the teams we face are more likely to be better than us. If you added a healthy Green and 1-2 healthy shooting guards to last year's team we could have easily made the finals. If Rondo's as unimportant as people claim we should easily be able to duplicate that.
And I honestly think we will duplicate it. I think we will go until we run into the heat, if we don't beat the heat tho *Doesn't matter how many games it takes for us to lose* that doesn't mean we miss rondo.
Also you have to look at who last years celtics team beat to get to where they were. Hawks and sixers. If this years team plays better competition you have to take it into consideration. For example, if they lose to a bulls team with rose.
Hopefully a bulls team with rose is seeded 4-5, while we get to play in the 2-3-6-7 side of the bracket :) Let the Heat/Bulls kill themselves while we get by the other way! (knicks/pacers, sigh)
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
TP for an excellent point. I also am confident that Rondo will be actively shopped for a big in the off-season, a decision I would totally support.
That's an interesting, albeit flawed, article that totally fails to account for several factors that are key in the Celtics' resurgence - vastly improved offensive ball movement, shots off primary and secondary transition, what we used to call "rim attacks," and, most importantly, opposition baskets off defensive breakdowns. Our defensive rotations simply aren't getting broken down as often out front.
It also doesn't take into account the fact that PP and Jet are playing significantly better now that they're healthier, Green's continued recovery from his year off, the fact that Rondo and Sully's injuries led to steady minutes and set rotations that many of the players haven't had all year, or the fact that we've played a lot of bad defenses since he's been out. The info posted doesn't "look under the hood" at all and assumes that the only thing that's changed for the Celts is Rondo being out. I can see why many of the posters here would agree with it.
Tim you've made these points ad nauseum by now. At best, they're far lighter factors than Rondo's injury. At worst, they're ridiculous (healthier Pierce? huh?).
I just don't get your refusal to believe that Rondo's value to the Cs might not be as high as you want it to be.
Regardless, the writer's point is what matters: Ainge has been shopping Rondo for a dog's age, and the Cs improved play in his absence certainly isn't going to make him stop.
If there are public acknowledgements of a speedy Rondo recovery this summer, I expect the Cs to look far and wide for a move. Rondo will get much harder to move by the trading deadline next season, or even worse, the summer of 2014. If a rebuilding team acquires him, they're going to want two full seasons to convince a grumpy Rondo to stay.
If you go by the rumors, as you seem to be doing, than the price for Rondo is a superstar talent. A Dwight or a Chris Paul type.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?
No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!
This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.
So by your logic, if we fail to make the conference finals or can't force it 7 games as we did last year, is this team still better without Rondo?
That's gonna be the kicker for me - just how many of these "we're better without Rondo" turn into "if we had Rondo..." once the playoffs hit.
Also, I think our defense going from good to elite as more to do with Avery coming back and rounding into shape.
You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, "How important is rondo to this team?" Going by the numbers, the records, and just watching the games, not that important at all and completely replaceable. If he isn't needed why keep him when you can trade him for a piece we actually do really need? A serious upgrade at the PF position.
If I go on the evidence of the last few years, I'd say he's pretty important.
I've already stated previously in this thread that I don't buy the assumption that adding a healthy Rondo to this current incarnation o f the team wouldn't make us even better. If Rondo hadn't gone down, can we say unequivocally that the team wouldn't have figured it out? They showed signs of improvement before Rondo went down and just after Avery came back that people are glossing over because it doesn't fit the "we're better without Rondo" narrative.
The celtics were riding a 6 game losing streak when rondo went down. If that's your idea of improvement then whatever. Even the 6 game winning streak we went on was no where near as impressive as the 7 game winning streak we went on post rondo injury.
Yeah we won 6 straight but you could tell by watching the games something still just wasn't right, we didn't look that good winning those games. Plus you can't look back on previous years, this is a new team and plus we haven't really had much evidence to go on playing without rondo.
This year is the absolute perfect opportunity to see how much rondo is really needed. No excuses, just watch the games and lets see how we do the rest of the year without him. So far, we're doing just fine.
So again I ask you, based on you logic if we can't duplicate or exceed last year's playoff run, is this team still better without Rondo?
Again you're asking the wrong question. That's not what this thread is about. Let me help you out. The question you should be asking is "Is rondo important to this teams success" If rondo looks to be clearly missed in the playoffs Ill call it.
If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is. I didn't think we'd win with rondo so us losing without him won't change my mind on that. Its not as simple as "If we don't go these many games then rondo is missed" You have to actually watch the games to see what's going on.
You're still dancing around my question, the basis for which you brought into the conversation. You want to make the debate black & white in regards to whether we're better without Rondo. We've won X amount of games since he's went down, we're better. But when others argue there's other significant factors at play, you're not willing to consider it. Yet, when I ask if we don't have the same amount of success in the post season this year as we've had in years past with Rondo playing a vital role, you're ready to introduce other factors."If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is." Do you not see how totalitarian logic could be flawed.
And btw, if I opt to use several years of play to judge Rondo's importance to the team instead of 20 game stretch than I will.
Now you're just saying untrue statements and you're asking a question that nobody in this thread is even talking about. To answer your question the answer is NO. It isn't that black and white and this thread isn't even about what you keep talking about. Its about how important rondo is to this team. All evidence suggests hes not that important at all to THIS team.
-
The Celtics offense looks better right now because the offense flows from defense and the defense has improved, compared to the start of the season.
The defense was clearly improving before Rondo was injured. Was Rondo keeping the defense from reaching its potential? Was he just slowing its trajectory and it would have been looking like an elite defense eventually, just later in the season? Was the defense close to a point where everything just gelled as if a switch was flipped and Rondo's injury was irrelevant to when that happened, so the timing was a coincidence?
As long as Doc has players who execute his defense and aren't worthless on offense, I suspect the Celtics will always be a team that has a shot of making the playoffs.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
TP for an excellent point. I also am confident that Rondo will be actively shopped for a big in the off-season, a decision I would totally support.
That's an interesting, albeit flawed, article that totally fails to account for several factors that are key in the Celtics' resurgence - vastly improved offensive ball movement, shots off primary and secondary transition, what we used to call "rim attacks," and, most importantly, opposition baskets off defensive breakdowns. Our defensive rotations simply aren't getting broken down as often out front.
It also doesn't take into account the fact that PP and Jet are playing significantly better now that they're healthier, Green's continued recovery from his year off, the fact that Rondo and Sully's injuries led to steady minutes and set rotations that many of the players haven't had all year, or the fact that we've played a lot of bad defenses since he's been out. The info posted doesn't "look under the hood" at all and assumes that the only thing that's changed for the Celts is Rondo being out. I can see why many of the posters here would agree with it.
Tim you've made these points ad nauseum by now. At best, they're far lighter factors than Rondo's injury. At worst, they're ridiculous (healthier Pierce? huh?).
I just don't get your refusal to believe that Rondo's value to the Cs might not be as high as you want it to be.
Regardless, the writer's point is what matters: Ainge has been shopping Rondo for a dog's age, and the Cs improved play in his absence certainly isn't going to make him stop.
If there are public acknowledgements of a speedy Rondo recovery this summer, I expect the Cs to look far and wide for a move. Rondo will get much harder to move by the trading deadline next season, or even worse, the summer of 2014. If a rebuilding team acquires him, they're going to want two full seasons to convince a grumpy Rondo to stay.
If you go by the rumors, as you seem to be doing, than the price for Rondo is a superstar talent. A Dwight or a Chris Paul type.
There have been plenty of rumors regarding Rondo for lesser players than those two. Regardless, rumors like that for Howard are 'leaked' by the Cs to drive up Rondo's less-than-ideal value.
They will never land a 'superstar' in his prime for Rondo. When the Hornets traded Paul, they first took Pau Gasol and change, then Eric Gordon and change over Rondo. That's an indication of his marginal market value, which certainly can't have gone up.
-
The Celtics are unquestionably playing better without Rondo.
There's also little question that the Celtics were playing beneath their potential earlier in the season.
However, the question of whether the Celtics will be better in the playoffs without Rondo than they would have been with him playing is very much an open question.
While Rondo frustrates me at times, and the offensive system frustrates me even further, I simply don't believe we're better off without Rondo. Perhaps Doc should adjust the way Rondo is utilized, but to think we're better without him in any capacity just seems incorrect to me.
-
The Celtics are unquestionably playing better without Rondo.
There's also little question that the Celtics were playing beneath their potential earlier in the season.
However, the question of whether the Celtics will be better in the playoffs without Rondo than they would have been with him playing is very much an open question.
While Rondo frustrates me at times, and the offensive system frustrates me even further, I simply don't believe we're better off without Rondo. Perhaps Doc should adjust the way Rondo is utilized, but to think we're better without him in any capacity just seems incorrect to me.
Totally agree. Of course you'd rather have Rondo in the playoffs than not.
The follow-up question -- which we basically can't answer until he is traded, if ever -- is are the Cs better off with someone in trade for Rondo considering their play without him?
Rondo's hardly a perfect fit for Doc, and obviously there have been some questions about his leadership ability...
I think Rondo's trade value is damaged goods for a few reasons, including how much he's been shopped (unsuccessfully), and the continued perception he tanks a little when the spotlight isn't big enough. I don't see the Cs getting an All-Star for him -- I think they'll have to take prospects, picks or risky players in return, which only makes the situation murkier...
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?
No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!
This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.
So by your logic, if we fail to make the conference finals or can't force it 7 games as we did last year, is this team still better without Rondo?
That's gonna be the kicker for me - just how many of these "we're better without Rondo" turn into "if we had Rondo..." once the playoffs hit.
Also, I think our defense going from good to elite as more to do with Avery coming back and rounding into shape.
You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, "How important is rondo to this team?" Going by the numbers, the records, and just watching the games, not that important at all and completely replaceable. If he isn't needed why keep him when you can trade him for a piece we actually do really need? A serious upgrade at the PF position.
If I go on the evidence of the last few years, I'd say he's pretty important.
I've already stated previously in this thread that I don't buy the assumption that adding a healthy Rondo to this current incarnation o f the team wouldn't make us even better. If Rondo hadn't gone down, can we say unequivocally that the team wouldn't have figured it out? They showed signs of improvement before Rondo went down and just after Avery came back that people are glossing over because it doesn't fit the "we're better without Rondo" narrative.
The celtics were riding a 6 game losing streak when rondo went down. If that's your idea of improvement then whatever. Even the 6 game winning streak we went on was no where near as impressive as the 7 game winning streak we went on post rondo injury.
Yeah we won 6 straight but you could tell by watching the games something still just wasn't right, we didn't look that good winning those games. Plus you can't look back on previous years, this is a new team and plus we haven't really had much evidence to go on playing without rondo.
This year is the absolute perfect opportunity to see how much rondo is really needed. No excuses, just watch the games and lets see how we do the rest of the year without him. So far, we're doing just fine.
So again I ask you, based on you logic if we can't duplicate or exceed last year's playoff run, is this team still better without Rondo?
Again you're asking the wrong question. That's not what this thread is about. Let me help you out. The question you should be asking is "Is rondo important to this teams success" If rondo looks to be clearly missed in the playoffs Ill call it.
If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is. I didn't think we'd win with rondo so us losing without him won't change my mind on that. Its not as simple as "If we don't go these many games then rondo is missed" You have to actually watch the games to see what's going on.
You're still dancing around my question, the basis for which you brought into the conversation. You want to make the debate black & white in regards to whether we're better without Rondo. We've won X amount of games since he's went down, we're better. But when others argue there's other significant factors at play, you're not willing to consider it. Yet, when I ask if we don't have the same amount of success in the post season this year as we've had in years past with Rondo playing a vital role, you're ready to introduce other factors."If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is." Do you not see how totalitarian logic could be flawed.
And btw, if I opt to use several years of play to judge Rondo's importance to the team instead of 20 game stretch than I will.
Now you're just saying untrue statements and you're asking a question that nobody in this thread is even talking about. To answer your question the answer is NO. It isn't that black and white and this thread isn't even about what you keep talking about. Its about how important rondo is to this team. All evidence suggests hes not that important at all to THIS team.
How am I saying "untrue" statements when I'm repeating what you said. You keep saying "just watch and see how we do" does that not include the playoffs? Why is it okay to make the argument black and white now, but not in the playoffs.
Don't get mad if I poke holes in your argument.
-
They will never land a 'superstar' in his prime for Rondo. When the Hornets traded Paul, they first took Pau Gasol and change, then Eric Gordon and change over Rondo. That's an indication of his marginal market value, which certainly can't have gone up.
Maybe the goal in a trade, if you trade Rondo, should be a mature superstar viewed as starting the downside of his career, around the same age as Pierce/Garnett/Allen in 2008. Instead of trying to find someone young enough to be a Celtic for a decade, look for someone with the heart to be a Celtic for life.
Also, the Hornets would have received Lamar Odom, Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Goran Dragic, and at least one first-round pick, not Pau Gasol, in the vetoed trade. And the Hornets didn't just get Gordon but a guy who was drafted #8 overall in Al-Farouq Aminu and a draft pick formerly belonging to the Timberwolves which ended up being high enough to draft Austin Rivers. A healthy Rondo, a young player with upside like Sullinger or Bradley, and a likely lottery pick would be the sort of package that could bring in a superstar big, but I'm not sure Sullinger or Bradley should be traded and the Celtics don't have that sort of pick anyways.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?
No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!
This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.
So by your logic, if we fail to make the conference finals or can't force it 7 games as we did last year, is this team still better without Rondo?
That's gonna be the kicker for me - just how many of these "we're better without Rondo" turn into "if we had Rondo..." once the playoffs hit.
Also, I think our defense going from good to elite as more to do with Avery coming back and rounding into shape.
You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, "How important is rondo to this team?" Going by the numbers, the records, and just watching the games, not that important at all and completely replaceable. If he isn't needed why keep him when you can trade him for a piece we actually do really need? A serious upgrade at the PF position.
If I go on the evidence of the last few years, I'd say he's pretty important.
I've already stated previously in this thread that I don't buy the assumption that adding a healthy Rondo to this current incarnation o f the team wouldn't make us even better. If Rondo hadn't gone down, can we say unequivocally that the team wouldn't have figured it out? They showed signs of improvement before Rondo went down and just after Avery came back that people are glossing over because it doesn't fit the "we're better without Rondo" narrative.
The celtics were riding a 6 game losing streak when rondo went down. If that's your idea of improvement then whatever. Even the 6 game winning streak we went on was no where near as impressive as the 7 game winning streak we went on post rondo injury.
Yeah we won 6 straight but you could tell by watching the games something still just wasn't right, we didn't look that good winning those games. Plus you can't look back on previous years, this is a new team and plus we haven't really had much evidence to go on playing without rondo.
This year is the absolute perfect opportunity to see how much rondo is really needed. No excuses, just watch the games and lets see how we do the rest of the year without him. So far, we're doing just fine.
So again I ask you, based on you logic if we can't duplicate or exceed last year's playoff run, is this team still better without Rondo?
Again you're asking the wrong question. That's not what this thread is about. Let me help you out. The question you should be asking is "Is rondo important to this teams success" If rondo looks to be clearly missed in the playoffs Ill call it.
If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is. I didn't think we'd win with rondo so us losing without him won't change my mind on that. Its not as simple as "If we don't go these many games then rondo is missed" You have to actually watch the games to see what's going on.
You're still dancing around my question, the basis for which you brought into the conversation. You want to make the debate black & white in regards to whether we're better without Rondo. We've won X amount of games since he's went down, we're better. But when others argue there's other significant factors at play, you're not willing to consider it. Yet, when I ask if we don't have the same amount of success in the post season this year as we've had in years past with Rondo playing a vital role, you're ready to introduce other factors."If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is." Do you not see how totalitarian logic could be flawed.
And btw, if I opt to use several years of play to judge Rondo's importance to the team instead of 20 game stretch than I will.
Now you're just saying untrue statements and you're asking a question that nobody in this thread is even talking about. To answer your question the answer is NO. It isn't that black and white and this thread isn't even about what you keep talking about. Its about how important rondo is to this team. All evidence suggests hes not that important at all to THIS team.
How am I saying "untrue" statements when I'm repeating what you said. You keep saying "just watch and see how we do" does that not include the playoffs? Why is it okay to make the argument black and white now, but not in the playoffs.
Don't get mad if I poke holes in your argument.
I'm not mad I just find it hilarious that you actually think you're proving any kind of point. You're all over the place right now. Yes I said watch and see how we do and yes that includes the playoffs. I never said that just because we have a better record we're better off without rondo tho, never once did i make that my sole argument like you're trying to make it seem like.
My number one argument is by simply watching the games *I know its forbiddin to actually make statements based off that on these boards but..*I saw by just watching the games how much better we were moving the ball without rondo and how much comfortable everyone looked. Add in the fact we're playing better defense and we're winning.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
TP for an excellent point. I also am confident that Rondo will be actively shopped for a big in the off-season, a decision I would totally support.
That's an interesting, albeit flawed, article that totally fails to account for several factors that are key in the Celtics' resurgence - vastly improved offensive ball movement, shots off primary and secondary transition, what we used to call "rim attacks," and, most importantly, opposition baskets off defensive breakdowns. Our defensive rotations simply aren't getting broken down as often out front.
It also doesn't take into account the fact that PP and Jet are playing significantly better now that they're healthier, Green's continued recovery from his year off, the fact that Rondo and Sully's injuries led to steady minutes and set rotations that many of the players haven't had all year, or the fact that we've played a lot of bad defenses since he's been out. The info posted doesn't "look under the hood" at all and assumes that the only thing that's changed for the Celts is Rondo being out. I can see why many of the posters here would agree with it.
Tim you've made these points ad nauseum by now. At best, they're far lighter factors than Rondo's injury. At worst, they're ridiculous (healthier Pierce? huh?).
I just don't get your refusal to believe that Rondo's value to the Cs might not be as high as you want it to be.
Regardless, the writer's point is what matters: Ainge has been shopping Rondo for a dog's age, and the Cs improved play in his absence certainly isn't going to make him stop.
If there are public acknowledgements of a speedy Rondo recovery this summer, I expect the Cs to look far and wide for a move. Rondo will get much harder to move by the trading deadline next season, or even worse, the summer of 2014. If a rebuilding team acquires him, they're going to want two full seasons to convince a grumpy Rondo to stay.
If you go by the rumors, as you seem to be doing, than the price for Rondo is a superstar talent. A Dwight or a Chris Paul type.
There have been plenty of rumors regarding Rondo for lesser players than those two. Regardless, rumors like that for Howard are 'leaked' by the Cs to drive up Rondo's less-than-ideal value.
They will never land a 'superstar' in his prime for Rondo. When the Hornets traded Paul, they first took Pau Gasol and change, then Eric Gordon and change over Rondo. That's an indication of his marginal market value, which certainly can't have gone up.
http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2012-03-01/rajon-rondo-trade-rumors-boston-celtics-stephen-curry-paul-pierce
I have never heard any confirmation by any reliable source who actually works for the Celtics or any other organization that any of these rumors are true. In the end, these rumors just add up to a whole bunch of speculation.
Comments like the one about Howard deals being "leaked" by the Celtics to drive up value are pure opinion and speculation on your part. You are entitled to your opinion, but I have no reason to believe that it's the truth.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
TP for an excellent point. I also am confident that Rondo will be actively shopped for a big in the off-season, a decision I would totally support.
That's an interesting, albeit flawed, article that totally fails to account for several factors that are key in the Celtics' resurgence - vastly improved offensive ball movement, shots off primary and secondary transition, what we used to call "rim attacks," and, most importantly, opposition baskets off defensive breakdowns. Our defensive rotations simply aren't getting broken down as often out front.
It also doesn't take into account the fact that PP and Jet are playing significantly better now that they're healthier, Green's continued recovery from his year off, the fact that Rondo and Sully's injuries led to steady minutes and set rotations that many of the players haven't had all year, or the fact that we've played a lot of bad defenses since he's been out. The info posted doesn't "look under the hood" at all and assumes that the only thing that's changed for the Celts is Rondo being out. I can see why many of the posters here would agree with it.
Tim you've made these points ad nauseum by now. At best, they're far lighter factors than Rondo's injury. At worst, they're ridiculous (healthier Pierce? huh?).
I just don't get your refusal to believe that Rondo's value to the Cs might not be as high as you want it to be.
If PP and Terry take (off the top of head) the same number of shots but score a combined 5-6 points less what do you think that does to our offensive rating? That's 6-7 ppp less, or the difference between between being 24th in offense (like we are) and 8th. The claim that all these factors combined are far lighter than Rondo leaving isn't IMO a very well informed comment.
-
They've been playing better since Rondo went out but I don't think they're a better team without Rondo.
"I think" mean your opinion. But the stats are the real thing. The score 13-4 without Rondo cannot be ignored. And this score is not happening suddenly
-
They've been playing better since Rondo went out but I don't think they're a better team without Rondo.
"I think" mean your opinion. But the stats are the real thing. The score 13-4 without Rondo cannot be ignored. And this score is not happening suddenly
Let me know when we get to the finals, then we'll be a better team without him.
-
They're also 19-10 since Bradley's return and Fab Melo is the second best shooter on the team, next to Chris Wilcox. Yeah, stats. ::)
-
yes WE ARE a better team. we're missing a star player but that star player didnt make us a better TEAM. He shined while no one else did.
-
yes WE ARE a better team. we're missing a star player but that star player didnt make us a better TEAM. He shined while no one else did.
He also shines when other do. He's made us a better TEAM since 2007 when they drafted him.
-
My thinking is the same as it was early in this streak - we're not a better team without Rondo, but we can sure be learning a few things about how to be better with him.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
TP for an excellent point. I also am confident that Rondo will be actively shopped for a big in the off-season, a decision I would totally support.
That's an interesting, albeit flawed, article that totally fails to account for several factors that are key in the Celtics' resurgence - vastly improved offensive ball movement, shots off primary and secondary transition, what we used to call "rim attacks," and, most importantly, opposition baskets off defensive breakdowns. Our defensive rotations simply aren't getting broken down as often out front.
It also doesn't take into account the fact that PP and Jet are playing significantly better now that they're healthier, Green's continued recovery from his year off, the fact that Rondo and Sully's injuries led to steady minutes and set rotations that many of the players haven't had all year, or the fact that we've played a lot of bad defenses since he's been out. The info posted doesn't "look under the hood" at all and assumes that the only thing that's changed for the Celts is Rondo being out. I can see why many of the posters here would agree with it.
Regardless, the writer's point is what matters: Ainge has been shopping Rondo for a dog's age, and the Cs improved play in his absence certainly isn't going to make him stop.
How did you come to that conclusion by reading that article? The whole point was that the Celtics are playing better without Rondo, but his absence was not the main cause of the improvement.
If you're looking for evidence that Rondo's style is detrimental to his team, it doesn't really exist. Boston is still the same offense, depending heavily on long 2-pointers that are difficult to make at a high rate of efficiency. The Celtics are still more likely to cheer for the Lakers than get an offensive rebound and rarely get to the free throw line. And they still overcome it because of their defense -- now more than ever.
Explaining this effect is more difficult than observing it. After all, Rondo is a four-time All-Defensive Team selection. His defense appeared to slip this season, but before Rondo's injury Boston had shown no tendency to defend better with him on the bench. That suggests the real changes lie elsewhere.
First, the Celtics have benefited from the return of defensive ace Avery Bradley after surgery on both shoulders. In the month Bradley and Rondo played together, they were just as stout defensively as they have been since Rondo went down. Secondly, Boston has figured out how to defend when a different star -- center Kevin Garnett -- is on the bench. During the first two months of the season, the Celtics' D sprung leaks every time Garnett rested. Since then, as NBA.com's John Schuhmann noted on Twitter earlier this week, they've actually defended slightly better when Garnett is off the floor.
Taken together, the numbers indicate that Boston is playing better without Rondo, but not that the Celtics are playing better because Rondo is out. It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
TP for an excellent point. I also am confident that Rondo will be actively shopped for a big in the off-season, a decision I would totally support.
That's an interesting, albeit flawed, article that totally fails to account for several factors that are key in the Celtics' resurgence - vastly improved offensive ball movement, shots off primary and secondary transition, what we used to call "rim attacks," and, most importantly, opposition baskets off defensive breakdowns. Our defensive rotations simply aren't getting broken down as often out front.
It also doesn't take into account the fact that PP and Jet are playing significantly better now that they're healthier, Green's continued recovery from his year off, the fact that Rondo and Sully's injuries led to steady minutes and set rotations that many of the players haven't had all year, or the fact that we've played a lot of bad defenses since he's been out. The info posted doesn't "look under the hood" at all and assumes that the only thing that's changed for the Celts is Rondo being out. I can see why many of the posters here would agree with it.
Regardless, the writer's point is what matters: Ainge has been shopping Rondo for a dog's age, and the Cs improved play in his absence certainly isn't going to make him stop.
How did you come to that conclusion by reading that article? The whole point was that the Celtics are playing better without Rondo, but his absence was not the main cause of the improvement.
If you're looking for evidence that Rondo's style is detrimental to his team, it doesn't really exist. Boston is still the same offense, depending heavily on long 2-pointers that are difficult to make at a high rate of efficiency. The Celtics are still more likely to cheer for the Lakers than get an offensive rebound and rarely get to the free throw line. And they still overcome it because of their defense -- now more than ever.
Explaining this effect is more difficult than observing it. After all, Rondo is a four-time All-Defensive Team selection. His defense appeared to slip this season, but before Rondo's injury Boston had shown no tendency to defend better with him on the bench. That suggests the real changes lie elsewhere.
First, the Celtics have benefited from the return of defensive ace Avery Bradley after surgery on both shoulders. In the month Bradley and Rondo played together, they were just as stout defensively as they have been since Rondo went down. Secondly, Boston has figured out how to defend when a different star -- center Kevin Garnett -- is on the bench. During the first two months of the season, the Celtics' D sprung leaks every time Garnett rested. Since then, as NBA.com's John Schuhmann noted on Twitter earlier this week, they've actually defended slightly better when Garnett is off the floor.
Taken together, the numbers indicate that Boston is playing better without Rondo, but not that the Celtics are playing better because Rondo is out. It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
So that was in the article and the OP left it out? Hilarious.
-
Rondo can make most teams better, there is no question about his ability , speed and play making IQ.
TO me the it is clear , he does not play consistent (for what ever reason) , has become a diva or sorts and lazy on defense.
Being a GREAT PLAYER and NOT playing that way every game is two different things in the real world......Rondo has been exposed ...sorry folks ...
Celtics are 100% better off with out Rondo , if the ball dominating diva shows up on the court . He is not an asset to any team playing during one of his moody periods.
When Rondo plays as hard as Lee and AB night in and night out the Celtics COULD be better , but the fact is Rondo has not produced and played good team ball and his absence points directly to that.
-
Rondo can make most teams better, there is no question about his ability , speed and play making IQ.
TO me the it is clear , he does not play consistent (for what ever reason) , has become a diva or sorts and lazy on defense.
Being a GREAT PLAYER and NOT playing that way every game is two different things in the real world......Rondo has been exposed ...sorry folks ...
Celtics are 100% better off with out Rondo , if the ball dominating diva shows up on the court . He is not an asset to any team playing during one of his moody periods.
When Rondo plays as hard as Lee and AB night in and night out the Celtics COULD be better , but the fact is Rondo has not produced and played good team ball and his absence points directly to that.
Rondo's "exposed" every year when the playoffs roll around. His "moody" periods are generally when he's playing through injuries. And if you watched the team last year the team got off to a terrible start, mainly because KG and PP were out of shape/injured. Those two started playing better around the time Rondo missed a few games due to injury. Their (and the team's) improvement was for reasons that had nothing to do with Rondo and weren't a sign he didn't fit in well with the team. They went on to play better ball when he came back and he led them on a deep playoff run.
This year probably would have played out the same. If the other players had been playing as well on defense earlier in the year as they are now we'd have been a top 5-6 team in the league when Rondo went out instead of 20-23, but it took the players a while to figure out the system and how to work together.
-
Well, big surprise.....guess what....only kg and a few others are consistantly solid....EVERYONE has a few off games....they are only people....you excuse pp when he is flat, and he can be VERY FLAT...you seem to hold Rondo to some other standard for some reason.....a standard you hold no one else to........that is odd....and another thing....COACHING is what is supposed to fix these simple things rondo doesn't do...and they are simple...his defense is....to steal, instruct him to stay in front of his man.....and look at the other perspective, we had to HIRE 5-6 other guards to fill rondos role...and it still isn't right....look at the turnovers on bringing the ball up...RONDO NEVER lost the DRIBBLE..not even while running it up...think about it....!
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
The "is Rondo more replaceable than we thought" question is exactly what we need to be looking at. The better/worse debate is almost a lost cause at this point. TP
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
The "is Rondo more replaceable than we thought" question is exactly what we need to be looking at. The better/worse debate is almost a lost cause at this point. TP
Considering how much healthier we are than last year more success in the playoffs would probably help answer the questions.
-
The problem with any of these hypothetical comparisons is that they don't really allow for a parallel possibility for improvement if Rondo had stayed healthy. It's pretty cut and dry that the Celtics are playing better ball now than they were before he got hurt, but it's also reasonable to expect that the team would have figured out how to play with each other more effectively if he was still around.
In the end, just be happy that they are playing a good brand of basketball, and the season is not a lost cause.
The reality is, we can never "know". We can just try to understand like reasons based on the evidence. As fans, our opinions don't matter. On the other hand, Ainge has to try to understand what is going on to make the best moves for this team. His criteria isn't going to be one of surety. He will look at the data plus the qualitative analysis and decide if the Celtics are better off moving him.
If we look at the flow of the season, when Bradley came back, we had an immediate winning streak. Than we followed that with a pathetic losing streak. Then, Rondo goes down. Take away that losing streak and the narrative is just that Bradley was the difference maker. We would not be questioning Rondo's value so much. But, because of that losing streak, it seems as if we needed to ditch Rondo to get it together.
I'm not sure the evidence is strong enough to say we are better without Rondo, but it does seem to indicate that Bradley might be more of a difference maker for our team.
-
The deal is Bradley is there to fix rondo's mistakes, and also to run with him...remember, bradley wasn't there all along with rondo...we would be soo much better with the TWO of them, and yes, doc can chime in and fix some of rondos mistakes, and then pp's worn out ISO's, bass lack of effort or consistancy, Greens reluctance, terry's shooting or defense, lee, crawford, or williams wildness or lack of knowing the D or the system......pick a player, name the imperfection.....except maybe KG....Rondo is still impossible to guard, no one steals it from him...and you can see PP is a bit jealous of him, as pp tries to do what rondo did....with bad results...pp is now a lame passer and ball handler compared to rondo....and pp doesn't like that green is coming on big.....you need to understand team and politics before you condemn rondo.....again, ask kobe who he wants on HIS team...think he knows more than you....too bad, becasue he does..!
-
The deal is Bradley is there to fix rondo's mistakes, and also to run with him...remember, bradley wasn't there all along with rondo...we would be soo much better with the TWO of them, and yes, doc can chime in and fix some of rondos mistakes, and then pp's worn out ISO's, bass lack of effort or consistancy, Greens reluctance, terry's shooting or defense, lee, crawford, or williams wildness or lack of knowing the D or the system......pick a player, name the imperfection.....except maybe KG....Rondo is still impossible to guard, no one steals it from him...and you can see PP is a bit jealous of him, as pp tries to do what rondo did....with bad results...pp is now a lame passer and ball handler compared to rondo....and pp doesn't like that green is coming on big.....you need to understand team and politics before you condemn rondo.....again, ask kobe who he wants on HIS team...think he knows more than you....too bad, becasue he does..!
I agree with most of your points, but you sure do read a lot of drama into the situation. Are you Pierce's psychotherapist?
-
Bradey doesmake a difference, but not the kind to ditch rondo....he opens things up for rondo, would give rondo the running mate we had before...like TA used to do with rondo.....we didn't get rondo and brad together this year...but that is the combo that can help beat Miami....what would wade do.....brad all over him, rondo zipping by him.....= no chance....then body up on lebron....lebron still would be hard to cover with his body and his refs.....but he isn't as bright as he is capable, he is no jordon or bird, or magic...he is just more athletic....
-
This quote from the article is key:
"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.
Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?" I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.
Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?" I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
The "is Rondo more replaceable than we thought" question is exactly what we need to be looking at. The better/worse debate is almost a lost cause at this point. TP
Yup, also, nice name lol.
-
Did you not se last night, as the last 5 minutes or less, when green was right open in front of pp...and pp looked right at him.....needed to pass, but not to him...so he went up top, in a difficult way, to pass to kg...green had the open lane, from the elbow of the foul line..pp knew that....I play and coach on a team, and have for many years....i know what it means when one player "looks down" on another, as in, i know he is open but i am not passing to him......it is a preconcieved decision that is illustrated by the instinctual reaction....just like ray allen being jealous of rondo....i did not know that...but it now makes sense.....BIG players all have and need big egos.....they are good and bad...you think pp has no ego..?
-
Did you not se last night, as the last 5 minutes or less, when green was right open in front of pp...and pp looked right at him.....needed to pass, but not to him...so he went up top, in a difficult way, to pass to kg...green had the open lane, from the elbow of the foul line..pp knew that....I play and coach on a team, and have for many years....i know what it means when one player "looks down" on another, as in, i know he is open but i am not passing to him......it is a preconcieved decision that is illustrated by the instinctual reaction....just like ray allen being jealous of rondo....i did not know that...but it now makes sense.....BIG players all have and need big egos.....they are good and bad...you think pp has no ego..?
Yeah that was horrible man. I almost ripped pierces head off for that but since we won I sort of let it go. Still, that was absolutely terrible. Of course pierce has an ego.
-
BUT..i don't claim to KNOW any of this.....I just saw things....that are maybe familiar to what i knew in other places..but Ray Allen DID say that himself...and player DO have big ego's, and need them...but they don't like it when the new guy comes in and starts to take their place....even if they help him, they still want to be THE GO TO GUY....but they cannt be forever....did you see green do that elbow shot pp loves.....same place, same money.....no one likes to be replaced..!
-
Did you not se last night, as the last 5 minutes or less, when green was right open in front of pp...and pp looked right at him.....needed to pass, but not to him...so he went up top, in a difficult way, to pass to kg...green had the open lane, from the elbow of the foul line..pp knew that....I play and coach on a team, and have for many years....i know what it means when one player "looks down" on another, as in, i know he is open but i am not passing to him......it is a preconcieved decision that is illustrated by the instinctual reaction....just like ray allen being jealous of rondo....i did not know that...but it now makes sense.....BIG players all have and need big egos.....they are good and bad...you think pp has no ego..?
Yeah that was horrible man. I almost ripped pierces head off for that but since we won I sort of let it go. Still, that was absolutely terrible. Of course pierce has an ego.
yup, tp for that...glad you saw it also....that was an easy 2 for green...that lane was soooo open, and green and pp had eye contact...greens hands were like....okay man, give it to me.....there was no defense left or right for 5 feet...and only 10 feet to the rim.....green gets to the rim FAST.....kg took a tough shot and missed...i love pp....he is still the captain, and deserves it...but a player must adjust to life below the rim, and as a veteran....and not let his ego cost the team....it is tough to do.
-
That is one reason Rondo is worth keeping, he has a lifetime opportunity to see how life would be without him...as in "It is a wonderful life" doc has some responsibility in Rondo's shortcomings too...he IS the coach....make it so that you expect SOMETHING from your leaders....COACH......ect....! Maybe Rondo can adjust to move the ball up faster, really cover his man.....ect...
-
Besides, you cannot directly say we are better without rondo, the only way you could just say that is...IF all things stayed the same...we lost rondo, added NO ONE, then went on to win lots.....that didn't happen, a lot of things changed also...a lot of additions and subtractions....a REAL LOT of players were exchanged....!!!
-
From ESPN's Weekend Dime (http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/page/weekenddime-130308-09/weekend-dime):
Eastern Conference scout on the ceiling for the Rajon Rondo-less Celtics:
"I'll buy your [contention] that they're playing happier without him, but when it comes down to the big games, you need a couple ****s. And Rondo is the leading **** Boston has. He affects the game like nobody else.
"During the regular season, I agree, he plays for stats too much, but when it comes to the playoffs, he's playing to win the game. He's definitely a diva and he definitely has his issues, but who does Miami have to game-plan for if Rondo isn't there? Paul Pierce is a warrior, but he's only going to be able to play 15 top-level minutes out of 30. [Kevin Garnett] is a defensive specialist at this point in time. The totality of the Heat overtakes the totality of the Celtics when Rondo's not there, but I still think he's in Miami's heads and the Celtics are in the Heat's heads when the teams are at full strength.
"Without Rondo, Miami wins that series in five."
How many people are on board with the idea that the Celtics are better in the regular season without Rondo, but worse in the post-season without him? How many people think it is impossible for something like that to be the case?
-
From ESPN's Weekend Dime (http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/page/weekenddime-130308-09/weekend-dime):
Eastern Conference scout on the ceiling for the Rajon Rondo-less Celtics:
"I'll buy your [contention] that they're playing happier without him, but when it comes down to the big games, you need a couple ****s. And Rondo is the leading **** Boston has. He affects the game like nobody else.
"During the regular season, I agree, he plays for stats too much, but when it comes to the playoffs, he's playing to win the game. He's definitely a diva and he definitely has his issues, but who does Miami have to game-plan for if Rondo isn't there? Paul Pierce is a warrior, but he's only going to be able to play 15 top-level minutes out of 30. [Kevin Garnett] is a defensive specialist at this point in time. The totality of the Heat overtakes the totality of the Celtics when Rondo's not there, but I still think he's in Miami's heads and the Celtics are in the Heat's heads when the teams are at full strength.
"Without Rondo, Miami wins that series in five."
How many people are on board with the idea that the Celtics are better in the regular season without Rondo, but worse in the post-season without him? How many people think it is impossible for something like that to be the case?
Nobody knows.
-
From ESPN's Weekend Dime (http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/page/weekenddime-130308-09/weekend-dime):
Eastern Conference scout on the ceiling for the Rajon Rondo-less Celtics:
"I'll buy your [contention] that they're playing happier without him, but when it comes down to the big games, you need a couple ****s. And Rondo is the leading **** Boston has. He affects the game like nobody else.
"During the regular season, I agree, he plays for stats too much, but when it comes to the playoffs, he's playing to win the game. He's definitely a diva and he definitely has his issues, but who does Miami have to game-plan for if Rondo isn't there? Paul Pierce is a warrior, but he's only going to be able to play 15 top-level minutes out of 30. [Kevin Garnett] is a defensive specialist at this point in time. The totality of the Heat overtakes the totality of the Celtics when Rondo's not there, but I still think he's in Miami's heads and the Celtics are in the Heat's heads when the teams are at full strength.
"Without Rondo, Miami wins that series in five."
How many people are on board with the idea that the Celtics are better in the regular season without Rondo, but worse in the post-season without him? How many people think it is impossible for something like that to be the case?
I don't think they're better in the regular season without him. I think if the other players were playing as well in the winter as they are now they'd be top seed in the east.
-
From ESPN's Weekend Dime (http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/page/weekenddime-130308-09/weekend-dime):
Eastern Conference scout on the ceiling for the Rajon Rondo-less Celtics:
"I'll buy your [contention] that they're playing happier without him, but when it comes down to the big games, you need a couple ****s. And Rondo is the leading **** Boston has. He affects the game like nobody else.
"During the regular season, I agree, he plays for stats too much, but when it comes to the playoffs, he's playing to win the game. He's definitely a diva and he definitely has his issues, but who does Miami have to game-plan for if Rondo isn't there? Paul Pierce is a warrior, but he's only going to be able to play 15 top-level minutes out of 30. [Kevin Garnett] is a defensive specialist at this point in time. The totality of the Heat overtakes the totality of the Celtics when Rondo's not there, but I still think he's in Miami's heads and the Celtics are in the Heat's heads when the teams are at full strength.
"Without Rondo, Miami wins that series in five."
How many people are on board with the idea that the Celtics are better in the regular season without Rondo, but worse in the post-season without him? How many people think it is impossible for something like that to be the case?
That's possible, its also possible they do just as good or better in the postseason without him. I think he'll be missed in the playoffs but I don't know that for sure, its all speculation right now. All i can tell you is as of right now they're showing no signs of missing rondo.
-
I don't think they're better in the regular season without him. I think if the other players were playing as well in the winter as they are now they'd be top seed in the east.
[/quote]
Rite on Brother...
Without a true point guard running the show vs Playoff competition they might win a series but no chance of beating the Heat..
Its a great story but without a defensive presence in the middle to help Garnett, again they don't stand a chance..
Even if they meet the Heat. Miami's pressure difference WILL be to much for Bradley and Lee.
Ainge missed the boat on trade day for a Veteran point man and or a big..
-
They've been playing better since Rondo went out but I don't think they're a better team without Rondo.
We that see clearly with own eyes are convinced we're better w/o Rondo. Logic for some isn't logical. Of course it will be a better team when Rondo comes back and deepens our bench.
-
They've been playing better since Rondo went out but I don't think they're a better team without Rondo.
We that see clearly with own eyes are convinced we're better w/o Rondo. Logic for some isn't logical. Of course it will be a better team when Rondo comes back and deepens our bench.
Are you attempting to say that my statement isn't logical?
-
I don't think they're better in the regular season without him. I think if the other players were playing as well in the winter as they are now they'd be top seed in the east.
Rite on Brother...
Without a true point guard running the show vs Playoff competition they might win a series but no chance of beating the Heat..
Its a great story but without a defensive presence in the middle to help Garnett, again they don't stand a chance..
Even if they meet the Heat. Miami's pressure difference WILL be to much for Bradley and Lee.
Ainge missed the boat on trade day for a Veteran point man and or a big..
[/quote]
So you're saying even with rondo we stood no chance then.
-
They've been playing better since Rondo went out but I don't think they're a better team without Rondo.
We that see clearly with own eyes are convinced we're better w/o Rondo. Logic for some isn't logical. Of course it will be a better team when Rondo comes back and deepens our bench.
Are you trying to say Rondo would sit on the bench behind Lee and Bradley? Too funny.
-
I honestly have to see how the Celtics play in the playoffs this year to make a conclusion
But the 2008 Championship run is a perfect example that Rondo probably is inter-changeable. Rondo was the 4th most important player that season, and did not dominate the ball
Celtics played so fluid on offense that season, and also were the best defensive team when Rondo wasn't at the forefront
-
We that see clearly with own eyes are convinced we're better w/o Rondo. Logic for some isn't logical. Of course it will be a better team when Rondo comes back and deepens our bench.
[/quote]
Are you trying to say Rondo would sit on the bench behind Lee and Bradley? Too funny.
[/quote]
Absolutely, what is this admiration of Rondo? Stop being a fan for a moment and look at recent facts. I would play Bradley until it didn't work anymore. What are we 15-4 with him. Rondo's last display of talent had an 18-20 record. Do you believe Allen left because the Team with Rondo was headed in the wrong direction. The Team stopped communicating and the locker room wasn't that cozy either.
-
Benching an All-Star? What am I even reading??
-
Are you attempting to say that my statement isn't logical?
[/quote]
How can we be a better team like immediately when Rondo went down the Celts started winning and now have a 15-4 record compared to 18-20 with Rondo? Rondo became a drag on the Team and the record proves it. No one is bigger than the Team, Rondo was developing a negative attitude. Celticdom was in despair and Bradley brought new energy.
-
Gotta love it how the guys who can hit free throws hate on Rondo, Shaq, Dwight Howard, and Josh Smith. Let's totally discount all the great things they do that most people can not.
The inability to hit free throws at a high rate does not make one a liability on the basketball court.
Rondo is a great basketball player.
-
I honestly have to see how the Celtics play in the playoffs this year to make a conclusion
But the 2008 Championship run is a perfect example that Rondo probably is inter-changeable. Rondo was the 4th most important player that season, and did not dominate the ball
Celtics played so fluid on offense that season, and also were the best defensive team when Rondo wasn't at the forefront
I agree with all this.
-
We that see clearly with own eyes are convinced we're better w/o Rondo. Logic for some isn't logical. Of course it will be a better team when Rondo comes back and deepens our bench.
Are you trying to say Rondo would sit on the bench behind Lee and Bradley? Too funny.
[/quote]
Absolutely, what is this admiration of Rondo? Stop being a fan for a moment and look at recent facts. I would play Bradley until it didn't work anymore. What are we 15-4 with him. Rondo's last display of talent had an 18-20 record. Do you believe Allen left because the Team with Rondo was headed in the wrong direction. The Team stopped communicating and the locker room wasn't that cozy either.
[/quote]
Yes, I'm sure you're an expert in the locker room. And if you're looking for people to blame for Ray leaving, don't forget about Bradley who stole Ray's spot in the starting lineup. The team got off to a slow start last year as well and Rondo almost led them to the finals. There's no reason to think that wouldn't happen this year.