Another win w/o a pouting Rondo

[crimson_stallion]

Oh C'mon, Man...that's close enough, lol

No, it really isn't.  You cannot say somebody flirted with a triple double when they only recorded double figures in ONE category, and didn't record more than 8 in any others.

Maybe if he had 21, 8, 8 and 8 then you could say it...but 21/8/7/6?  It would have taken him at least another full quarter to record the extra two assists and three rebounds, and it could have taken him a whole extra game to record the extra 4 steals. 

I'm talking about the early 2000's mavs that were amazing offensively and got to the conference finals. They had a seriously good point guard in steve nash, but were like 9th or 10th one year and around 14th the next for assists.

My point was that one player or a team getting lots of assists doesn't necessarily mean that you have a good offense. It is a result of the system you're running. The large assist numbers by rondo lead to some fans (especially on here) overrating what he means to a team's overall offensive production. Of course he is a benefit because he is a great player, but high numbers of assists to rondo don't necessarily lead to high offensive production from his teammates.

I was never knocking rondo at all. All I'm saying is that he benefits from a system and so do his numbers.

This is true.  The greatest number that the Rondo homers completely fail to acknowledge is our assist numbers as a team with and without Rondo.  People talk about how many extra baskets are created by his 11 assists a game, but that is a gross exhageration.  Why?  Because last I checked we only average 3 assists more as a team when Rondo is player as opposed to when he isn't.

What does that mean?  It means that when Rondo isn't here we have a lot of other skilled playmakers who collect all of those assists that Rondo isn't getting, so the vast majority (70%) of Rondo's assists are being made by other guys instead.  What happens if Rondo plays?  He records 11 assists, but the rest of the team collectively records 8 assists less because the ball is ALWAYS in Rondo's hands.

Yes that doesn't change the fact that we are 3 assists per game better with Rondo out there (and hence the team DOES generate more assists with him than without him).  But what it shows is that Rondo's "critical importance" to the teams passing game is clearly way overblown.  If we traded Rondo out for a guy who can give us 5 or 6 assists per game without having the ball in his hands 80% of the time, then we probably wouldn't be producing any fewer assists as a team.

Another question.

Offensively, has our team honestly gotten worse (statistically) since Rondo went out?  Has our offensive rating gotten significantly worse?  I'm not asking to be a smart alec because I actually ahven't looked it up recently, but the last time I checked our offensive rating as a team without Rondo was on par with (or slightly better than) it was when he was still here.

Defensively, has our team gotten better?  Yes, clearly it has.  Last I checked we are not ranked 5th in the NBA in defensive rating, and while Rondo was here we were something like 20th.  No that isn't all due to Rondo - getting AB back strengthened our defense dramatially and it's just gotten better and better since then - but the rate of improvement seems to be dramatically high since Rondo went out.

Now I'm still willing to acknowledge that our team IS better with Rondo in the lineup, simply because he has an ability at times to create matchup problems for opposing teams which makes us stronger at key points in games (like in crunch time and closing minutes).  So better with Rondo?  I'll say yes.  Dramatically better?  I'll say no.  Is he irreplacable?  Again, I'll say no.

Taking into consideration our need for scoring, if we (for arguments sake) replaced Rondo with Chris Paul, would we get worse? 

If we replaced him with a healthy Derek Rose, would we get worse?

If we replaced him with a healthy Tony Parker would we get worse? 

I would say that the answer to all of those questions is no.  There are a LOT of guys out there who play PG who we could replace Rondo with who I don't believe would make out team any worse.  It's not just the superstars either.  How about Jeff Teague or Jrue Holiday?  What they give up in 'assists' they would more than make up for with the extra scoring threat.

Andre Miller even? He is not far off Rondo as a playmaker and a passer, and (like Rondo) he has limited range on his jump shot.  I don't think we get significantly worse as a team if we made a trade of Rondo for Miller + others...at least in the short term.  Long term obviously different story. 

So yes Rondo is a very good player and does give us beneftis when he's on the court, but no he isn't irreplacable.


 

[crimson_stallion]

I've played with ball hogs, and I've played with pass first set up PGs.  I hated playing with a ball hog, but if he were on, I'd make sure to set picks for him and if he was off, I'd hit the offensive glass.  With the pass hungry PG, I'd make sure I was ready for the ball at all times. Players need to be MORE engaged with Rondo, lest a pass will hit them in the face.   

Last I checked the role of a great PG is to make everybody on the team better.  A great PG does this by understanding the strengths/weaknesses/limitations of the guys he plays with, and orchestrating the offense accordingly to take advantage of those charactristics.

If you know a certain player on your team has butter fingers (i.e. Bass) then you make sure you get him soft, simple passes that are easy for him to catch while he's not in heavy traffic.

If you know a certain player is a great catch-and-shoot guy then you run plays to create space for him (i.e. Ray Allen's multiple screens) so that you can get him an open shot.

If you know a guy likes to cut back door (i.e. Lee, Bradley) then you run a play to open up the baseline so that they can cut for an easy layup.

If you know a guy is a pure scorer who can score in pretty much any situation (i.e. Pierce) then you can run ISO's, Post him up on smaller guys, etc. 

Likewise if you know a guy likes to create his own shot, you try to get him an ISO or get him the ball in a mistmatch so he can take it to the basket or shoot over a smaller guy.

I belive that up until this season Rondo did this pretty much as well as (if not better than) anybody else in the league.  This season, I just don't feel he's done that.  He seems to play the way HE wants to play, and he expects everybody else on the team to find a way to excel in that scenario.  He'll drive and throw tricky last minute passes to Bass, who will fumble the ball.  He'll leave Green, Lee and Terry sitting in the corner and set him them for catch-and-shoot threes...but all of those guys are better at creating of the dribble. 

He just seems to make the other guy son the team worse, rather than better, but playing them away from their strengths.

At lest this is how it looks to me. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.

[BballTim]

I'll stay out of the main "Rondo vs. no Rondo" argument but I will add a side note.

Assist numbers are just as much a representation of how a TEAM plays and where it's offensive emphasis lies, not necessarily just how the individual passes the ball.

Furthermore having an offense that has a high number of assists to an individual or as a whole is an indicator of HOW a team plays the offensive end. Not HOW WELL they play.

A lot of awesome offensive teams the past few years have had lower assist numbers than some would expect.

This is one part of Rondo's game that is vastly overrated. I don't mean his passing ability (this is very good). I mean "oh my god rondo is the leading assist guy in the NBA". Who cares, our offense was still decidedly average.

  Most of the teams with fewer assists have more players that can create their own shot than we usually do.  I'd also say that Rondo leading the league in assists kept the offense from being farther below average. Over the past few years we've been near the bottom of the league in offensive rebounds but we've somewhat offset that with a good fg%. Rondo has a lot to do with that.

A lot of the Dallas teams from a few years back that were excellent offensively with low assist numbers didn't really have guys that were amazing at creating their own shot. Dirk in the post being the exception to that. They had some great shooters though.

I think with Paul Pierce, KG, Terry, Green etc we would have a similar level of offensive talent to those dallas teams.

Which Dallas teams are you referring to?  Their championship squad led the league in assists per game. 

If you don't have a Lebron James, a Kevin Durant, a Carmelo Anthony, or a Kobe Bryant on your team, you'd better be good at moving the ball around to get open shots. 

Or, you better have a guy like Rondo who can get open shots for others.

I'm talking about the early 2000's mavs that were amazing offensively and got to the conference finals. They had a seriously good point guard in steve nash, but were like 9th or 10th one year and around 14th the next for assists.

My point was that one player or a team getting lots of assists doesn't necessarily mean that you have a good offense. It is a result of the system you're running. The large assist numbers by rondo lead to some fans (especially on here) overrating what he means to a team's overall offensive production. Of course he is a benefit because he is a great player, but high numbers of assists to rondo don't necessarily lead to high offensive production from his teammates.

I was never knocking rondo at all. All I'm saying is that he benefits from a system and so do his numbers.

  Dirk and Finley were both good at creating their own shot and Howard was a pretty decent post player. The Celts have a few players that can create their own shot but before this year it was mainly PP and Rondo. Rondo's passing doesn't necessarily lead to high offensive production but it leads to more efficient scoring from easier shots that he creates.

[GreenFaith1819]

Quote from: GreenFaith1819 on Yesterday at 11:29:05 AM
Oh C'mon, Man...that's close enough, lol

No, it really isn't.  You cannot say somebody flirted with a triple double when they only recorded double figures in ONE category, and didn't record more than 8 in any others.

Maybe if he had 21, 8, 8 and 8 then you could say it...but 21/8/7/6?  It would have taken him at least another full quarter to record the extra two assists and three rebounds, and it could have taken him a whole extra game to record the extra 4 steals.

For Crimson Stallion -

Can you name me another player in that clinching game 6 that put up those kinds of numbers, then? Across the board?

I just think that with the highlight naturally on the Big Three, Rajon Rondo quietly had himself a VERY good game, too.

It is funny how - and this is not just you, CS - how some of us are writing off Rajon Rondo.

[BballTim]

I'm talking about the early 2000's mavs that were amazing offensively and got to the conference finals. They had a seriously good point guard in steve nash, but were like 9th or 10th one year and around 14th the next for assists.

My point was that one player or a team getting lots of assists doesn't necessarily mean that you have a good offense. It is a result of the system you're running. The large assist numbers by rondo lead to some fans (especially on here) overrating what he means to a team's overall offensive production. Of course he is a benefit because he is a great player, but high numbers of assists to rondo don't necessarily lead to high offensive production from his teammates.

I was never knocking rondo at all. All I'm saying is that he benefits from a system and so do his numbers.

This is true.  The greatest number that the Rondo homers completely fail to acknowledge is our assist numbers as a team with and without Rondo.  People talk about how many extra baskets are created by his 11 assists a game, but that is a gross exhageration.  Why?  Because last I checked we only average 3 assists more as a team when Rondo is player as opposed to when he isn't.

What does that mean?  It means that when Rondo isn't here we have a lot of other skilled playmakers who collect all of those assists that Rondo isn't getting, so the vast majority (70%) of Rondo's assists are being made by other guys instead.  What happens if Rondo plays?  He records 11 assists, but the rest of the team collectively records 8 assists less because the ball is ALWAYS in Rondo's hands.

Yes that doesn't change the fact that we are 3 assists per game better with Rondo out there (and hence the team DOES generate more assists with him than without him).  But what it shows is that Rondo's "critical importance" to the teams passing game is clearly way overblown.  If we traded Rondo out for a guy who can give us 5 or 6 assists per game without having the ball in his hands 80% of the time, then we probably wouldn't be producing any fewer assists as a team.

  Last year around mod-season some Wizards fan decided that Wall was as good a passer as Rondo but the Wizards were just worse shooters than the Celts and their poor shooting cost him a lot of assists. He looked at all of the Wall passes that led directly to a shot or a turnover when there would have been a shot if not for the turnover and compared that to their efficiency aside from that (makes / (misses + turnovers)) ignoring possessions that led to free throws.

  They found that the scoring efficiency from Wall's passes was 44%, the efficiency from all other plays was 35%, and that 9% difference was just over the expected average from an 82games study. They did the same comparison for Rondo and found that while the efficiency from the non-Rondo passes was about the same as the Wizards 35%, the scoring efficiency from Rondo's passes was 56%. the 21% jump was over twice the jump seen by Wall and about 2.5 times the league average.

  So while the team is only getting a few less assists a game without Rondo, it will probably take more possessions to get those assisted baskets. Just compare Rondo to Wall, who seems to be average in how efficient his passes are. Rondo gets 11 assists a game. From his 56% efficiency it would take almost 20 possessions (shots or turnovers) to get those 11 baskets. At Wall's 44% conversion rate it would take 25 possessions to get 11 assists.

  It's not just the assists you need to look at, it's how efficiently we score off of Rondo's passes.

[mctyson]

So yes Rondo is a very good player and does give us beneftis when he's on the court, but no he isn't irreplacable.

This is true, and also not true.  There are few players in the league who are irreplaceable - maybe only two in Durant and Lebron.  I would actually argue that KG is near that level for the Celtics, specifically, because of his defense.  But really only a couple players are irreplaceable.

Having said that - Rondo's game is irreplaceable.  He is one of the most unique talents in today'g game and one of my favorite players of the last 25 years.  He is an athletic freak and, possibly, and all time great passer of the basketball.  If we got rid of him and took back someone like Kyle Lowry, it is true that the Celtics might not be that much worse off - they could even be better - but you will never see the kind of games from Lowry that Rondo was capable of.

At the end of the day, we watch pro sports for the competition and the entertainment.  Rondo has both of those qualities in spades, and there are few players alive that can say the same thing.

[GreenFaith1819]

Look, let's just put all of this to rest via the Great Dr. Seuss with  poem:

-I would not trade Rondo for Green Eggs and Ham-

I would not trade Rondo for Green Eggs and Ham

I would not trade him, Sam I Am

I would not trade him for a flake

I would not trade him for Blake

I would not trade him for Russell

I would not trade him because of his hustle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32MjBkENi3M

I would not trade him for Rose

I would not trade him, I suppose

I would not trade him for Paul

I would not trade him, AT ALL.

I would not trade Rajon Rondo for Green Eggs and Ham, I would NOT trade him, Sam I Am.

Now let's stop the "over-rated"...."moody"..."petulant", lol...comments I've seen about our Rajon Rondo since he's been hurt.

The guy has laid it out there on the line for this team...he is not a perfect player by any means, but - to me - he is UNDOUBTEDLY CELTIC.

Let's just be thankful that the "TEAM" has stepped up in his place, and let's look forward to a HEALTHY Rajon Rondo coming back next year and leading this team.

 

[jdz101]

I'm talking about the early 2000's mavs that were amazing offensively and got to the conference finals. They had a seriously good point guard in steve nash, but were like 9th or 10th one year and around 14th the next for assists.

My point was that one player or a team getting lots of assists doesn't necessarily mean that you have a good offense. It is a result of the system you're running. The large assist numbers by rondo lead to some fans (especially on here) overrating what he means to a team's overall offensive production. Of course he is a benefit because he is a great player, but high numbers of assists to rondo don't necessarily lead to high offensive production from his teammates.

I was never knocking rondo at all. All I'm saying is that he benefits from a system and so do his numbers.

This is true.  The greatest number that the Rondo homers completely fail to acknowledge is our assist numbers as a team with and without Rondo.  People talk about how many extra baskets are created by his 11 assists a game, but that is a gross exhageration.  Why?  Because last I checked we only average 3 assists more as a team when Rondo is player as opposed to when he isn't.

What does that mean?  It means that when Rondo isn't here we have a lot of other skilled playmakers who collect all of those assists that Rondo isn't getting, so the vast majority (70%) of Rondo's assists are being made by other guys instead.  What happens if Rondo plays?  He records 11 assists, but the rest of the team collectively records 8 assists less because the ball is ALWAYS in Rondo's hands.

Yes that doesn't change the fact that we are 3 assists per game better with Rondo out there (and hence the team DOES generate more assists with him than without him).  But what it shows is that Rondo's "critical importance" to the teams passing game is clearly way overblown.  If we traded Rondo out for a guy who can give us 5 or 6 assists per game without having the ball in his hands 80% of the time, then we probably wouldn't be producing any fewer assists as a team.

  Last year around mod-season some Wizards fan decided that Wall was as good a passer as Rondo but the Wizards were just worse shooters than the Celts and their poor shooting cost him a lot of assists. He looked at all of the Wall passes that led directly to a shot or a turnover when there would have been a shot if not for the turnover and compared that to their efficiency aside from that (makes / (misses + turnovers)) ignoring possessions that led to free throws.

  They found that the scoring efficiency from Wall's passes was 44%, the efficiency from all other plays was 35%, and that 9% difference was just over the expected average from an 82games study. They did the same comparison for Rondo and found that while the efficiency from the non-Rondo passes was about the same as the Wizards 35%, the scoring efficiency from Rondo's passes was 56%. the 21% jump was over twice the jump seen by Wall and about 2.5 times the league average.

  So while the team is only getting a few less assists a game without Rondo, it will probably take more possessions to get those assisted baskets. Just compare Rondo to Wall, who seems to be average in how efficient his passes are. Rondo gets 11 assists a game. From his 56% efficiency it would take almost 20 possessions (shots or turnovers) to get those 11 baskets. At Wall's 44% conversion rate it would take 25 possessions to get 11 assists.

  It's not just the assists you need to look at, it's how efficiently we score off of Rondo's passes.

I don't think rondo being clever and a brilliant executor of passes was ever called into question. A statistic like the one above just feeds the beast of "rondo only passes when he knows he'll get an assist" though. Not saying I'm part of that beast but rondo does benefit from being given the license to hold or dribble the ball for however long it takes during the possession until he does get an assist.

This has been a very effective system in previous years but this year's personnel seem to benefit greatly from playing without that restriction on them.

[Lightskinsmurf]

I'm talking about the early 2000's mavs that were amazing offensively and got to the conference finals. They had a seriously good point guard in steve nash, but were like 9th or 10th one year and around 14th the next for assists.

My point was that one player or a team getting lots of assists doesn't necessarily mean that you have a good offense. It is a result of the system you're running. The large assist numbers by rondo lead to some fans (especially on here) overrating what he means to a team's overall offensive production. Of course he is a benefit because he is a great player, but high numbers of assists to rondo don't necessarily lead to high offensive production from his teammates.

I was never knocking rondo at all. All I'm saying is that he benefits from a system and so do his numbers.

This is true.  The greatest number that the Rondo homers completely fail to acknowledge is our assist numbers as a team with and without Rondo.  People talk about how many extra baskets are created by his 11 assists a game, but that is a gross exhageration.  Why?  Because last I checked we only average 3 assists more as a team when Rondo is player as opposed to when he isn't.

What does that mean?  It means that when Rondo isn't here we have a lot of other skilled playmakers who collect all of those assists that Rondo isn't getting, so the vast majority (70%) of Rondo's assists are being made by other guys instead.  What happens if Rondo plays?  He records 11 assists, but the rest of the team collectively records 8 assists less because the ball is ALWAYS in Rondo's hands.

Yes that doesn't change the fact that we are 3 assists per game better with Rondo out there (and hence the team DOES generate more assists with him than without him).  But what it shows is that Rondo's "critical importance" to the teams passing game is clearly way overblown.  If we traded Rondo out for a guy who can give us 5 or 6 assists per game without having the ball in his hands 80% of the time, then we probably wouldn't be producing any fewer assists as a team.

  Last year around mod-season some Wizards fan decided that Wall was as good a passer as Rondo but the Wizards were just worse shooters than the Celts and their poor shooting cost him a lot of assists. He looked at all of the Wall passes that led directly to a shot or a turnover when there would have been a shot if not for the turnover and compared that to their efficiency aside from that (makes / (misses + turnovers)) ignoring possessions that led to free throws.

  They found that the scoring efficiency from Wall's passes was 44%, the efficiency from all other plays was 35%, and that 9% difference was just over the expected average from an 82games study. They did the same comparison for Rondo and found that while the efficiency from the non-Rondo passes was about the same as the Wizards 35%, the scoring efficiency from Rondo's passes was 56%. the 21% jump was over twice the jump seen by Wall and about 2.5 times the league average.

  So while the team is only getting a few less assists a game without Rondo, it will probably take more possessions to get those assisted baskets. Just compare Rondo to Wall, who seems to be average in how efficient his passes are. Rondo gets 11 assists a game. From his 56% efficiency it would take almost 20 possessions (shots or turnovers) to get those 11 baskets. At Wall's 44% conversion rate it would take 25 possessions to get 11 assists.

  It's not just the assists you need to look at, it's how efficiently we score off of Rondo's passes.

I don't think rondo being clever and a brilliant executor of passes was ever called into question. A statistic like the one above just feeds the beast of "rondo only passes when he knows he'll get an assist" though. Not saying I'm part of that beast but rondo does benefit from being given the license to hold or dribble the ball for however long it takes during the possession until he does get an assist.

This has been a very effective system in previous years but this year's personnel seem to benefit greatly from playing without that restriction on them.

Agreed

[Kane3387]

Look, let's just put all of this to rest via the Great Dr. Seuss with  poem:

-I would not trade Rondo for Green Eggs and Ham-

I would not trade Rondo for Green Eggs and Ham

I would not trade him, Sam I Am

I would not trade him for a flake

I would not trade him for Blake

I would not trade him for Russell

I would not trade him because of his hustle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32MjBkENi3M

I would not trade him for Rose

I would not trade him, I suppose

I would not trade him for Paul

I would not trade him, AT ALL.

I would not trade Rajon Rondo for Green Eggs and Ham, I would NOT trade him, Sam I Am.

Now let's stop the "over-rated"...."moody"..."petulant", lol...comments I've seen about our Rajon Rondo since he's been hurt.

The guy has laid it out there on the line for this team...he is not a perfect player by any means, but - to me - he is UNDOUBTEDLY CELTIC.

Let's just be thankful that the "TEAM" has stepped up in his place, and let's look forward to a HEALTHY Rajon Rondo coming back next year and leading this team.

Tp

[BballTim]

I'm talking about the early 2000's mavs that were amazing offensively and got to the conference finals. They had a seriously good point guard in steve nash, but were like 9th or 10th one year and around 14th the next for assists.

My point was that one player or a team getting lots of assists doesn't necessarily mean that you have a good offense. It is a result of the system you're running. The large assist numbers by rondo lead to some fans (especially on here) overrating what he means to a team's overall offensive production. Of course he is a benefit because he is a great player, but high numbers of assists to rondo don't necessarily lead to high offensive production from his teammates.

I was never knocking rondo at all. All I'm saying is that he benefits from a system and so do his numbers.

This is true.  The greatest number that the Rondo homers completely fail to acknowledge is our assist numbers as a team with and without Rondo.  People talk about how many extra baskets are created by his 11 assists a game, but that is a gross exhageration.  Why?  Because last I checked we only average 3 assists more as a team when Rondo is player as opposed to when he isn't.

What does that mean?  It means that when Rondo isn't here we have a lot of other skilled playmakers who collect all of those assists that Rondo isn't getting, so the vast majority (70%) of Rondo's assists are being made by other guys instead.  What happens if Rondo plays?  He records 11 assists, but the rest of the team collectively records 8 assists less because the ball is ALWAYS in Rondo's hands.

Yes that doesn't change the fact that we are 3 assists per game better with Rondo out there (and hence the team DOES generate more assists with him than without him).  But what it shows is that Rondo's "critical importance" to the teams passing game is clearly way overblown.  If we traded Rondo out for a guy who can give us 5 or 6 assists per game without having the ball in his hands 80% of the time, then we probably wouldn't be producing any fewer assists as a team.

  Last year around mod-season some Wizards fan decided that Wall was as good a passer as Rondo but the Wizards were just worse shooters than the Celts and their poor shooting cost him a lot of assists. He looked at all of the Wall passes that led directly to a shot or a turnover when there would have been a shot if not for the turnover and compared that to their efficiency aside from that (makes / (misses + turnovers)) ignoring possessions that led to free throws.

  They found that the scoring efficiency from Wall's passes was 44%, the efficiency from all other plays was 35%, and that 9% difference was just over the expected average from an 82games study. They did the same comparison for Rondo and found that while the efficiency from the non-Rondo passes was about the same as the Wizards 35%, the scoring efficiency from Rondo's passes was 56%. the 21% jump was over twice the jump seen by Wall and about 2.5 times the league average.

  So while the team is only getting a few less assists a game without Rondo, it will probably take more possessions to get those assisted baskets. Just compare Rondo to Wall, who seems to be average in how efficient his passes are. Rondo gets 11 assists a game. From his 56% efficiency it would take almost 20 possessions (shots or turnovers) to get those 11 baskets. At Wall's 44% conversion rate it would take 25 possessions to get 11 assists.

  It's not just the assists you need to look at, it's how efficiently we score off of Rondo's passes.

I don't think rondo being clever and a brilliant executor of passes was ever called into question. A statistic like the one above just feeds the beast of "rondo only passes when he knows he'll get an assist" though. Not saying I'm part of that beast but rondo does benefit from being given the license to hold or dribble the ball for however long it takes during the possession until he does get an assist.

  What I said was completely unrelated to "rondo only passes when he knows he'll get an assist". And while it's true that Rondo benefits from having the ball in his hands it's also true that the team benefits from Rondo having the ball in his hands. Look at any good offensive player, wouldn't you say that they benefit from having the ball as much or being allowed to shoot as much as they do?

This has been a very effective system in previous years but this year's personnel seem to benefit greatly from playing without that restriction on them.

  I'd still say that's somewhat overblown. If you look at the team in January (aside from Rondo playing hurt) Paul and Terry were both shooting poorly due to injuries, Wilcox was out of the lineup and Green (still getting healthier/re-acclimated to playing) was playing well in spurts but not as consistent.

  If you look at the offense since Rondo's been out, with Paul and Terry being healthy and playing well, Green playing better than we've ever seen him play in Boston, Wilcox taking Collins' minutes and the guards playing well you'd have to admit that we're close to firing on all cylinders right now. But then consider that the Rondo-less team, while playing about as good as you could expect them to on offense, aren't playing that much better than when our best offensive players were struggling due to injuries. Couple that with the thought that out of our 15 opponents since Rondo left only *3* teams played better than average defense (and remember how we looked against the Bulls last month). Then consider that our best offensive play this year came in the first month or so of the season when Rondo was healthy and controlling the ball. It's easy to argue that, while a player or two benefit from Rondo being out the team as a whole doesn't.

 

[celtics2]

I know that this is a basketball discussion board, but seriously, wait until the playoffs come to assess whether this team is better without Rondo.  I have a strong feeling these silly threads will disappear when it's all said and done.

I don't think the Celts will go far in the Playoffs with or without Rondo. I don't like the Celts against Miami or NY. Indy would be a better fit for the 1st round. Trade the often injured Rondo. He certainly won't make it back this Season. Enjoy the Team for what it is. Better without Rondo. Dennis Johnson knew how to play point as a mediocre guard. He got rid of the ball asap to Bird, McHale or the Chief. They got paid more than him for a reason. Rondo never got that point. Allen knew it was useless running around like a maniac waiting for Rondo to spoon feed his lazer like shooting. So he flew the coup for less $$. This was supposed to be a pass the ball up the court, not dribble up through double teams wasting time. Pierce KG and Allen took more punishment then warranted. End of Seasons, nothing left in the tank. That was Doc's fault because he couldn't control Rondo. Rondo's qualities are speed and court vision, however, between the ears is a partial vacuum.

[nickagneta]

I know that this is a basketball discussion board, but seriously, wait until the playoffs come to assess whether this team is better without Rondo.  I have a strong feeling these silly threads will disappear when it's all said and done.

I don't think the Celts will go far in the Playoffs with or without Rondo. I don't like the Celts against Miami or NY. Indy would be a better fit for the 1st round. Trade the often injured Rondo. He certainly won't make it back this Season. Enjoy the Team for what it is. Better without Rondo. Dennis Johnson knew how to play point as a mediocre guard. He got rid of the ball asap to Bird, McHale or the Chief. They got paid more than him for a reason. Rondo never got that point. Allen knew it was useless running around like a maniac waiting for Rondo to spoon feed his lazer like shooting. So he flew the coup for less $$. This was supposed to be a pass the ball up the court, not dribble up through double teams wasting time. Pierce KG and Allen took more punishment then warranted. End of Seasons, nothing left in the tank. That was Doc's fault because he couldn't control Rondo. Rondo's qualities are speed and court vision, however, between the ears is a partial vacuum.

Your entire post's credibility was lost calling Dennis Johnson "a mediocre guard" who just "got rid of the ball asap to Bird, McHale or the Chief."

Clearly, you know not of what you speak if you think Dennis Johnson was just some middle of the road guard.

[celtics2]

KG score 40???  For real?  I did a quick scan of his game log, and I don't think he's scored 30 or more in a game since his first year in Boston.  I love KG, but he does not have a 40 point game in him, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he never cracks 30 again.  Maybe I missed a game, but 25 is a great output from him at this point.  He's not a scorer at this point in his career.
[/quote]

This Team still has enough talent without Rondo to stay above 500 and make the Playoffs. Doesn't mean much if it's 5-8 spot but that's the best we got right now. Rondo will not make the number go up and could complicate things. He doesn't make a weak Team stronger yet excels with the Big 3's opening act. I say do him a favor,trade him out West to a Team that could profit by his gifts and make a leap up. . Assuming he will be NBA ready again.

[wahz]

That post, including the phrase "Dennis Johnson mediocre point guard"  has to go into a top ten post hall of shame here.

Its was nice to have a reason to think about how great he was again. I was usually begging for him to take the last shot, as he was as fearless and clutch as Larry. I loved those line drive jumpers that would rattle down in the last few minutes of the game. Probably nearly as great a defender as Chaney who I'd have on a first team all defense team. And lead a Sonics team to a title before getting to Boston, averaging 23-6-6 for the series. And named Finals MVP