next »

[droopdog7]

I know many will call me a basher but I have thought for a while that the positive effect Rondo has on the team's success is overrated.  He's a unique guy, but you have to consider both how he helps AND hurts the offense. 

If the team goes on to do well, in spite of not having a true PG, that pretty much could spell doom for Rondo on a couple of fronts.  One, it will be interesting to see how he fits back on the team next year.  Two, whatever perceived value Rondo may have (and I think many overrate said value) may be severely shot.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

Or we'll be even better?

It's the same thing that's going on in Chicago right now. They're doing well right now, absolutely doing well, does it spell doom for Derrick Rose? Knowing that Rose would command the ball as well as Rondo does, should they?

[droopdog7]

Or we'll be even better?

It's the same thing that's going on in Chicago right now. They're doing well right now, absolutely doing well, does it spell doom for Derrick Rose? Knowing that Rose would command the ball as well as Rondo does, should they?

We already KNOW how this team does with Rondo.  We are below .500.  The Chicago example is a bit different in that they are performing worse without Rose than with him. 

What if we actually perform better without Rondo?

[wdleehi]

Or is the teams vets following last year pattern of playing better the later the season got?

[Donoghus]

Or is the teams vets following last year pattern of playing better the later the season got?

Yeah, if the team does well, there's never going to be a cut & dry answer on the value of Rondo.

[scaryjerry]

If we do fine without him for now and then lose in the first round..that's something that's never happened in the kg era and its what I see happening without rondo...we shall see

[Fafnir]

Or we'll be even better?

It's the same thing that's going on in Chicago right now. They're doing well right now, absolutely doing well, does it spell doom for Derrick Rose? Knowing that Rose would command the ball as well as Rondo does, should they?

We already KNOW how this team does with Rondo.  We are below .500.  The Chicago example is a bit different in that they are performing worse without Rose than with him. 

What if we actually perform better without Rondo?

Depends on how we achieve said better performance.

Is it via a different offensive scheme that ends up being more effective? Or is it via slowing the game to a crawl and defending more vigorously. Running more in transition? Getting Paul Pierce right and having him not shoot in the 30s with poor defense by his standards?

[droopdog7]

Or is the teams vets following last year pattern of playing better the later the season got?

Yeah, if the team does well, there's never going to be a cut & dry answer on the value of Rondo.

Nothing in life is ever cut and dry.  You take the evidence and make a judgement.  I am merely making an assertion.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

Or we'll be even better?

It's the same thing that's going on in Chicago right now. They're doing well right now, absolutely doing well, does it spell doom for Derrick Rose? Knowing that Rose would command the ball as well as Rondo does, should they?

We already KNOW how this team does with Rondo.  We are below .500.  The Chicago example is a bit different in that they are performing worse without Rose than with him. 

What if we actually perform better without Rondo?

Then we'll be even better when Rondo comes back.

We were in a very close situation last year, and they picked it up. What if this year Rondo is healthy and we all of a sudden get on a roll, will we be asking these questions?

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

I know many will call me a basher but I have thought for a while that the positive effect Rondo has on the team's success is overrated.  He's a unique guy, but you have to consider both how he helps AND hurts the offense. 

If the team goes on to do well, in spite of not having a true PG, that pretty much could spell doom for Rondo on a couple of fronts.  One, it will be interesting to see how he fits back on the team next year.  Two, whatever perceived value Rondo may have (and I think many overrate said value) may be severely shot.

i think we will move the ball better as a team and get better player movement also without rondo. call me crazy but i think we can finish at least a game over .500. last i checked that is a winning record. That is all i expect right now. not any 12 games over like last year.

[Donoghus]

Or is the teams vets following last year pattern of playing better the later the season got?

Yeah, if the team does well, there's never going to be a cut & dry answer on the value of Rondo.

Nothing in life is ever cut and dry.  You take the evidence and make a judgement.  I am merely making an assertion.

Good for you.  And I'm merely pointing out that we'll never get a straight answer on the subject.

[BballTim]

Or we'll be even better?

It's the same thing that's going on in Chicago right now. They're doing well right now, absolutely doing well, does it spell doom for Derrick Rose? Knowing that Rose would command the ball as well as Rondo does, should they?

We already KNOW how this team does with Rondo.  We are below .500.  The Chicago example is a bit different in that they are performing worse without Rose than with him. 

What if we actually perform better without Rondo?

  Meaning make it to the finals?

[Onslaught]

How about we wait and see how things turn out. All of us are just blowing smoke right  now.

[lightspeed5]

the numbers show that we're better offensively with rondo, but worse defensively with rondo. the defense improves by a noticable margin when rondo is off the court.

[crimson_stallion]

Can't we technically still use the Amnesty clause on either Pierce or Rondo?  Not that I would do that (either is more valuable as a team asset or trade asset), but they are the only two guys we cam still use it on, right?

Personally I'd keep Pierce, his contract is expiring soon anyway.