Author Topic: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?  (Read 12670 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #15 on: March 08, 2013, 01:41:50 PM »

Online RJ87

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11685
  • Tommy Points: 1406
  • Let's Go Celtics!
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.
2021 Houston Rockets
PG: Kyrie Irving/Patty Mills/Jalen Brunson
SG: OG Anunoby/Norman Powell/Matisse Thybulle
SF: Gordon Hayward/Demar Derozan
PF: Giannis Antetokounmpo/Robert Covington
C: Kristaps Porzingis/Bobby Portis/James Wiseman

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #16 on: March 08, 2013, 01:43:18 PM »

Offline pearljammer10

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13129
  • Tommy Points: 885
the horse is more than brutally beaten beyond its demise at this point

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #17 on: March 08, 2013, 02:03:08 PM »

Offline Lightskinsmurf

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1949
  • Tommy Points: 134
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.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #18 on: March 08, 2013, 02:10:55 PM »

Online RJ87

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11685
  • Tommy Points: 1406
  • Let's Go Celtics!
Quote from: quidinqui33 link=topic=63433.msgout1427706#msg1427706 date=1362763251
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.
2021 Houston Rockets
PG: Kyrie Irving/Patty Mills/Jalen Brunson
SG: OG Anunoby/Norman Powell/Matisse Thybulle
SF: Gordon Hayward/Demar Derozan
PF: Giannis Antetokounmpo/Robert Covington
C: Kristaps Porzingis/Bobby Portis/James Wiseman

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #19 on: March 08, 2013, 02:14:39 PM »

Offline LilRip

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6857
  • Tommy Points: 391
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.
- LilRip

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #20 on: March 08, 2013, 02:20:16 PM »

Offline Lightskinsmurf

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1949
  • Tommy Points: 134
Quote from: quidinqui33 link=topic=63433.msgout1427706#msg1427706 date=1362763251
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.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #21 on: March 08, 2013, 02:24:52 PM »

Offline clover

  • Front Page Moderator
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6130
  • Tommy Points: 315
Quote from: quidinqui33 link=topic=63433.msgout1427706#msg1427706 date=1362763251
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.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #22 on: March 08, 2013, 02:26:16 PM »

Offline Lightskinsmurf

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1949
  • Tommy Points: 134
Quote from: quidinqui33 link=topic=63433.msgout1427706#msg1427706 date=1362763251
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.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #23 on: March 08, 2013, 02:26:30 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
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.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #24 on: March 08, 2013, 02:27:58 PM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11688
  • Tommy Points: 1469
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.
DKC Seventy-Sixers:

PG: G. Hill/D. Schroder
SG: C. Lee/B. Hield/T. Luwawu
SF:  Giannis/J. Lamb/M. Kuzminskas
PF:  E. Ilyasova/J. Jerebko/R. Christmas
C:    N. Vucevic/K. Olynyk/E. Davis/C. Jefferson

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #25 on: March 08, 2013, 02:33:45 PM »

Online RJ87

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11685
  • Tommy Points: 1406
  • Let's Go Celtics!
Quote from: quidinqui33 link=topic=63433.msgout1427706#msg1427706 date=1362763251
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.
2021 Houston Rockets
PG: Kyrie Irving/Patty Mills/Jalen Brunson
SG: OG Anunoby/Norman Powell/Matisse Thybulle
SF: Gordon Hayward/Demar Derozan
PF: Giannis Antetokounmpo/Robert Covington
C: Kristaps Porzingis/Bobby Portis/James Wiseman

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #26 on: March 08, 2013, 02:40:03 PM »

Online RJ87

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11685
  • Tommy Points: 1406
  • Let's Go Celtics!
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.
2021 Houston Rockets
PG: Kyrie Irving/Patty Mills/Jalen Brunson
SG: OG Anunoby/Norman Powell/Matisse Thybulle
SF: Gordon Hayward/Demar Derozan
PF: Giannis Antetokounmpo/Robert Covington
C: Kristaps Porzingis/Bobby Portis/James Wiseman

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #27 on: March 08, 2013, 02:42:00 PM »

Offline Lightskinsmurf

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1949
  • Tommy Points: 134
Quote from: quidinqui33 link=topic=63433.msgout1427706#msg1427706 date=1362763251
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.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #28 on: March 08, 2013, 02:43:54 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047
Quote from: quidinqui33 link=topic=63433.msgout1427706#msg1427706 date=1362763251
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.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #29 on: March 08, 2013, 02:46:38 PM »

Offline Lightskinsmurf

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1949
  • Tommy Points: 134
Quote from: quidinqui33 link=topic=63433.msgout1427706#msg1427706 date=1362763251
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.