Everyone who said sullinger should pretty much be banned for such absurdity 
Rondo lovers really need to get a grip. Just because people don't put rondo on this high pedestal that some of you think he should be on does NOT mean you have to be so nasty just because someone disagrees with you.
Some people on here didn't like the way this team played when rondo was controlling the offense. That is completely understandable.
Some people think him coming back could mess with chemistry, hard to argue how that might indeed be a possibility and even has a realistic chance of happening.
Its also hard to argue that this teams biggest problem right now is not having enough quality bigs who can rebound and keep people out the paint.
So, even tho you may disagree *And that's fine* acting like people that pick sullinger are morons is completely uncalled for and not even remotely true.
Wanting to go into the playoffs with Sully instead of Rondo is similar to wanting to play with Green instead of Garnett or Bradley over Pierce. The Celts can go into a playoff series with Rondo and there's a decent chance he'll be the best or second best player in the series. Are you claiming that you can say the same about Sully, or that having such players aren't overly necessary to win in the postseason?
I disagree with everything in bold. Rondo is no where near as important to this team as pierce or KG. Also, what I'm saying is, I have yet to see THIS TEAM play well when rondo was the one controlling the offense.
By this team I mean this year. What I'm saying is, I could see rondo coming back and the chemistry this team built go straight in the toilet. What I'm claiming is this teams biggest need is having another BIG next to KG that can rebound and keep people out the paint.
Id rather have another good big next to KG than to have rondo come back If I had to pick between the two. If you disagree, whatever. That's my stance.
Rondo scored or assisted a higher percentage of his team's points in the playoffs last year than any other player in the league. Claiming that he's nowhere near as important to the team as KG and PP is silly. And it's great that you have to qualify your comments about Rondo with "THIS TEAM" due to your small sample size, as if his entire career (including the time he spent last year playing with the other four starters we have) is somehow irrelevant. But in this case I'd say that it still falls short.
If you look at our offense up to late Nov (around the time Rondo's assist streak ended) we were a top 10 offense, 6th in eFG% and 3rd in TS%. So THIS TEAM playing well with Rondo controlling the offense clearly occurred, you just weren't paying attention when it did.
Lol if you're trying to tell me that this team was playing well this year with rondo then I have nothing else left to say to you. They might have had some games here and there where they looked ok but overall, no.
I've never seen a team play well and lose so much and look like crap while doing it. Oh, but I just wasn't paying attention lol. I think you're the one not paying attention.
You're right that the team was losing (feel free to congratulate yourself with a few more lols) but you don't seem to have much of an idea of why we were losing or how it relates to Rondo. The main problem with the team was our defense early in the year, *not* the Rondo controlled offense. Plenty of new players trying to learn the system, plenty of missed rotations, plenty of disastrous shifts with KG on the bench.
It took a while for the defense to come together. At the end of Nov we were 22nd in defense, at the end of Dec 18th, 9th at the end of Jan and 5th now. Clearly the team has improved over the course of the year, clearly that improvement started well before Rondo left. Couple that with a few key offensive players slumping due to injury (or, in your mind, because of Rondo), and it's easy to see why we were playing poorly. So, yes, when you try and blame our early season woes on Rondo I'm fairly certain that you weren't paying attention to what was going on with the team.
I've already explained why you can't compare previous years to this year. It doesn't matter how pretty rondos stats look if the team is losing and playing bad.
You've explained why you want to base all of your judgements on a small sample size this year when you're perfectly aware that looking at Rondo's career in Boston will show your claims to be ridiculous. I'm not buying your silly claim that the team that entered the 2012 playoffs with *the same 5 starters we had this year* is hugely different than this year's team because it's nonsense.
In fact if you look at last year you'll see a team that was struggling early in the season (mainly because PP and KG were out of shape/injured) and started playing well while Rondo was out with an injury. When Rondo came back and his teammates weren't playing like crap they became one of the best teams in the league and he led them to within a game of the finals. Sound familiar? The only difference between then and now is Rondo came back last year.
You can't play or win a game on a stat sheet. Almost every argument you have NONE of them involve you actually watching the games. Just reading off stats, which explains alot. This current team not only showed no signs of missing rondo, they started WINNING and looking better after he went down. If you can't see that, then I can't help you.
I watch the games, well enough to know what you're saying is wrong. Stats are a way of pointing that out. For instance, when someone claims that we took most of our shots with 3 seconds left on the shot clock with Rondo playing I could ether respond with "no sir" or "most teams take a higher percentage of their shots with 3 seconds left on the shot clock than the Celts, and we take the same percentage of late shots now than we did when Rondo was playing". Which response is more persuasive?
Your answer, cleverly enough, is neither, because just claiming you're wrong proves nothing and someone citing statistics to show that your observations are demonstrably false is a sign the person who disagrees with you doesn't watch the games. Score one for willful ignorance.
By the way, from watching the games I agree with you that the team looks better since Rondo went down. I just don't agree with your claim that Rondo not playing is why we improved. Therefore I don't think that Rondo coming back and playing like a star in Lee's spot would be somehow harmful to this team.
In fact I'm pretty confident that if you took that early season top 10 offense led by Rondo and combined it with the late season defense you'd have the title contender that I expected to see this year. You, on the other hand, will watch the team's (likely) demise in the playoffs and feel confident that our early season struggles prove that the team wouldn't have been better if Rondo came back. I mean it's not like the team hasn't struggled for long stretches during the season and gone on (Rondo led) deep playoffs runs twice in the last 3 years or anything.
Topic: Would you rather have Rondo or Sullinger back right now? (Read 22578 times)