Say OKC gets booted , would they trade Westbrook for Rondo then ? and would you?

[D.o.s.]

I think you'd need to get rid of Scott Brooks and his offense if you wanted to swap Rondo for Westbrook and see the Thunder flourish.

Not that he couldn't help them, it's just that he's not the best fit for the team's offense right now. I think Lowe put it best, talking about the Thunder's O in the playoffs:

The Thunder’s offense remains predictable, without any continuity or natural second and third options. They are running plays, but the Grizzlies know what’s coming, and if Allen or some other player can kill the clock with artful ball denial, the Thunder are always up against it without a plan.*

*And yes, this brings out the worst in Russell Westbrook

http://grantland.com/features/nba-playoffs-winners-and-losers-round-one-2014/

The problems with OKC aren't things that can be fixed as easily as swapping out a player like Westbrook for a player like Rondo.

[jambr380]

I think you'd need to get rid of Scott Brooks and his offense if you wanted to swap Rondo for Westbrook and see the Thunder flourish.

Not that he couldn't help them, it's just that he's not the best fit for the team's offense right now. I think Lowe put it best, talking about the Thunder's O in the playoffs:

The Thunder’s offense remains predictable, without any continuity or natural second and third options. They are running plays, but the Grizzlies know what’s coming, and if Allen or some other player can kill the clock with artful ball denial, the Thunder are always up against it without a plan.*

*And yes, this brings out the worst in Russell Westbrook

http://grantland.com/features/nba-playoffs-winners-and-losers-round-one-2014/

The problems with OKC aren't things that can be fixed as easily as swapping out a player like Westbrook for a player like Rondo.

Interesting quote. I stated earlier that trading Westbrook would obviously be a change in philosophy, but does that mean that Brooks is garbage? With Rondo on OKC, the offense would become a lot more dynamic. I get the argument that Westbrook is 'better' than Rondo (in overall physical talent), but he would also bring a lot more knowledge and court vision to the game. A trio of Durant, Ibaka, and him would absolutely be a contender - assuming OKC brings in a couple of guys to spread the floor.

[Celtics18]

I think you'd need to get rid of Scott Brooks and his offense if you wanted to swap Rondo for Westbrook and see the Thunder flourish.

Not that he couldn't help them, it's just that he's not the best fit for the team's offense right now. I think Lowe put it best, talking about the Thunder's O in the playoffs:

The Thunder’s offense remains predictable, without any continuity or natural second and third options. They are running plays, but the Grizzlies know what’s coming, and if Allen or some other player can kill the clock with artful ball denial, the Thunder are always up against it without a plan.*

*And yes, this brings out the worst in Russell Westbrook

http://grantland.com/features/nba-playoffs-winners-and-losers-round-one-2014/

The problems with OKC aren't things that can be fixed as easily as swapping out a player like Westbrook for a player like Rondo.

Interesting quote. I stated earlier that trading Westbrook would obviously be a change in philosophy, but does that mean that Brooks is garbage? With Rondo on OKC, the offense would become a lot more dynamic. I get the argument that Westbrook is 'better' than Rondo (in overall physical talent), but he would also bring a lot more knowledge and court vision to the game. A trio of Durant, Ibaka, and him would absolutely be a contender - assuming OKC brings in a couple of guys to spread the floor.

That would definitely be a sweet core.  On the flip side, would a core of Westbrook, Bradley, Green, Sully, and Olynyk be any closer to being a title contender than the one we have now?

Personally, I don't think so. 

[Moranis]

I think you'd need to get rid of Scott Brooks and his offense if you wanted to swap Rondo for Westbrook and see the Thunder flourish.

Not that he couldn't help them, it's just that he's not the best fit for the team's offense right now. I think Lowe put it best, talking about the Thunder's O in the playoffs:

The Thunder’s offense remains predictable, without any continuity or natural second and third options. They are running plays, but the Grizzlies know what’s coming, and if Allen or some other player can kill the clock with artful ball denial, the Thunder are always up against it without a plan.*

*And yes, this brings out the worst in Russell Westbrook

http://grantland.com/features/nba-playoffs-winners-and-losers-round-one-2014/

The problems with OKC aren't things that can be fixed as easily as swapping out a player like Westbrook for a player like Rondo.

Interesting quote. I stated earlier that trading Westbrook would obviously be a change in philosophy, but does that mean that Brooks is garbage? With Rondo on OKC, the offense would become a lot more dynamic. I get the argument that Westbrook is 'better' than Rondo (in overall physical talent), but he would also bring a lot more knowledge and court vision to the game. A trio of Durant, Ibaka, and him would absolutely be a contender - assuming OKC brings in a couple of guys to spread the floor.

That would definitely be a sweet core.  On the flip side, would a core of Westbrook, Bradley, Green, Sully, and Olynyk be any closer to being a title contender than the one we have now?

Personally, I don't think so.

It would be closer, but still a ways off. 

[Moranis]

I think you'd need to get rid of Scott Brooks and his offense if you wanted to swap Rondo for Westbrook and see the Thunder flourish.

Not that he couldn't help them, it's just that he's not the best fit for the team's offense right now. I think Lowe put it best, talking about the Thunder's O in the playoffs:

The Thunder’s offense remains predictable, without any continuity or natural second and third options. They are running plays, but the Grizzlies know what’s coming, and if Allen or some other player can kill the clock with artful ball denial, the Thunder are always up against it without a plan.*

*And yes, this brings out the worst in Russell Westbrook

http://grantland.com/features/nba-playoffs-winners-and-losers-round-one-2014/

The problems with OKC aren't things that can be fixed as easily as swapping out a player like Westbrook for a player like Rondo.

Interesting quote. I stated earlier that trading Westbrook would obviously be a change in philosophy, but does that mean that Brooks is garbage? With Rondo on OKC, the offense would become a lot more dynamic. I get the argument that Westbrook is 'better' than Rondo (in overall physical talent), but he would also bring a lot more knowledge and court vision to the game. A trio of Durant, Ibaka, and him would absolutely be a contender - assuming OKC brings in a couple of guys to spread the floor.

But they are a contender now and they don't need to find a reliable 2nd scoring option, something they would need to do with Rondo.

But to answer your question, yes Brooks is terrible.  He is one of the worst coaches on a good team in the history of basketball.  His rotations are horrible, his offensive and defensive schemes are terrible.  Brooks is by far the biggest problem in Oklahoma City.  It truly is astonishing how bad he is and that he isn't on the hot seat.  Totally ruining Durant's early prime, just like Mike Brown did with James' in Cleveland.  At least OKC has a credible g.m., something Cleveland didn't have which just compounded their problems.

[Celtics18]

I think you'd need to get rid of Scott Brooks and his offense if you wanted to swap Rondo for Westbrook and see the Thunder flourish.

Not that he couldn't help them, it's just that he's not the best fit for the team's offense right now. I think Lowe put it best, talking about the Thunder's O in the playoffs:

The Thunder’s offense remains predictable, without any continuity or natural second and third options. They are running plays, but the Grizzlies know what’s coming, and if Allen or some other player can kill the clock with artful ball denial, the Thunder are always up against it without a plan.*

*And yes, this brings out the worst in Russell Westbrook

http://grantland.com/features/nba-playoffs-winners-and-losers-round-one-2014/

The problems with OKC aren't things that can be fixed as easily as swapping out a player like Westbrook for a player like Rondo.

Interesting quote. I stated earlier that trading Westbrook would obviously be a change in philosophy, but does that mean that Brooks is garbage? With Rondo on OKC, the offense would become a lot more dynamic. I get the argument that Westbrook is 'better' than Rondo (in overall physical talent), but he would also bring a lot more knowledge and court vision to the game. A trio of Durant, Ibaka, and him would absolutely be a contender - assuming OKC brings in a couple of guys to spread the floor.

That would definitely be a sweet core.  On the flip side, would a core of Westbrook, Bradley, Green, Sully, and Olynyk be any closer to being a title contender than the one we have now?

Personally, I don't think so.

It would be closer, but still a ways off.

I don't agree with that.  The one thing in Westbrook's favor is that he's three years younger.  On the other hand, I really think that Rondo and Olynyk have the potential to complement each other very well on the court.  Watching those two form a key part of the future core is something I am really looking forward to.  I doubt I'd feel the same way about watching a Westbrook/Olynyk pairing. 

[D.o.s.]

I don't agree with that.  The one thing in Westbrook's favor is that he's three years younger.  On the other hand, I really think that Rondo and Olynyk have the potential to complement each other very well on the court.  Watching those two form a key part of the future core is something I am really looking forward to.  I doubt I'd feel the same way about watching a Westbrook/Olynyk pairing. 

I actually think Westbrook's game would be more helped by an above-average passing big more than Rondo's.

Interesting quote. I stated earlier that trading Westbrook would obviously be a change in philosophy, but does that mean that Brooks is garbage? With Rondo on OKC, the offense would become a lot more dynamic. I get the argument that Westbrook is 'better' than Rondo (in overall physical talent), but he would also bring a lot more knowledge and court vision to the game. A trio of Durant, Ibaka, and him would absolutely be a contender - assuming OKC brings in a couple of guys to spread the floor.

I think that depends largely on if you think Ibaka's going to develop into a reliable second option on the offensive end -- part of the reason the Harden trade went down the way it did was that Presti figured the team would be better off with a third banana like Ibaka than another ball-dominant scorer like Harden (and because they clearly thought that Westbrook was better than Harden), but I don't think they've ever entertained the idea of Ibaka as the second scorer.

[Celtics18]

I actually think Westbrook's game would be more helped by an above-average passing big more than Rondo's.

I was thinking more of how Rondo would help Olynyk's game than how Olynyk would help Rondo's.  Although, I do think that Kelly will help Rondo have more room to operate. 

I love Olynyk's passing ability and ability to put the ball on the floor when a defender is rushing at him.  I also want to see Rondo re-find his off-the-ball cutting game, which I thought was excellent earlier in his career, but we unfortunately haven't seen as much of lately. 

I'm not trying to unnecessarily slam Russell Westbrook.  He can definitely be fun to watch.  His aggressiveness and explosiveness going to the hoop may be unparalleled in the game right now.  I just have a hard time using the word "complementary" with Russell Westbrook and anybody in the same sentence. 

[Endless Paradise]

Not that he couldn't help them, it's just that he's not the best fit for the team's offense right now.

The problems with OKC aren't things that can be fixed as easily as swapping out a player like Westbrook for a player like Rondo.

This is all that needs to be said, really.  This goes right back to my original point: if the Thunder are bounced out of the playoffs early, the guy who most needs to be concerned is Scott Brooks, not Russell Westbrook.  The system OKC runs is one that necessitates having top-heavy scoring out of its two best players; there's not enough requisite, reliable depth for them to play otherwise.  That part is on Scott Brooks; he's a great player's coach and good at managing personalities, but he's shown a weakness with unimaginative offensive schemes and an over-reliance on veterans (which is why Lamb and Jones supposedly aren't developing).

There's also the fact that the personnel OKC has also requires that Durant and Westbrook take the lion's share of scoring; that part is on Sam Presti and the OKC front office.

As for Perkins taking a step back: really, we're going to put that on Westbrook?  You realize Perkins posted the worst playoff PER in NBA history last season - you know, the same playoffs where Westbrook only played two of the 11 games OKC played that postseason.  Perkins took a step back because he's declining as a player, much as it might hurt those of you who fondly remember his Celtics days to realize.  Westbrook had nothing to do with that and the fact that he was worse in the playoffs without Westbrook should probably indicate as much.

I appreciate the kind words from CoachBo and D.o.s., but make no mistake - I'm not discrediting Rondo at all.  I just really hate this notion that because Rondo's a more traditional point guard, that inherently makes him better than Westbrook 'cause assists, man.  Westbrook is great for OKC because being that he's such a credible scoring threat, he draws attention away from the less offensively-skilled players on the roster (think a Sefolosha, or a Lamb, or a Collison) and allows them to play under much less defensive pressure.  Just as one can argue that Lamb could be helped with a pass-first point guard who gets him more looks, I can easily counter than Lamb is equally helped with a shoot-first point guard who gets him fewer, but more open looks.

[D.o.s.]

I actually think Westbrook's game would be more helped by an above-average passing big more than Rondo's.

I was thinking more of how Rondo would help Olynyk's game than how Olynyk would help Rondo's.  Although, I do think that Kelly will help Rondo have more room to operate. 

I love Olynyk's passing ability and ability to put the ball on the floor when a defender is rushing at him.  I also want to see Rondo re-find his off-the-ball cutting game, which I thought was excellent earlier in his career, but we unfortunately haven't seen as much of lately. 

I'm not trying to unnecessarily slam Russell Westbrook.  He can definitely be fun to watch.  His aggressiveness and explosiveness going to the hoop may be unparalleled in the game right now.  I just have a hard time using the word "complementary" with Russell Westbrook and anybody in the same sentence.

Cutting Rondo needs to come back ASAP, I agree. Except -- who else do we want to have the ball on this roster if they're not shooting?

Westbrook is great for OKC because being that he's such a credible scoring threat, he draws attention away from the less offensively-skilled players on the roster (think a Sefolosha, or a Lamb, or a Collison) and allows them to play under much less defensive pressure.  Just as one can argue that Lamb could be helped with a pass-first point guard who gets him more looks, I can easily counter than Lamb is equally helped with a shoot-first point guard who gets him fewer, but more open looks.

Right -- that was the point of bringing up that touches/points per possession matrix. More passing does not always equal a better offense.

[Celtics18]

Cutting Rondo needs to come back ASAP, I agree. Except -- who else do we want to have the ball on this roster if they're not shooting?

Kelly Olynyk . . . of course. 

[LilRip]

TP to Endless Paradise. Great points all around.

[D.o.s.]

Cutting Rondo needs to come back ASAP, I agree. Except -- who else do we want to have the ball on this roster if they're not shooting?

Kelly Olynyk . . . of course.

[BballTim]

So what you are saying is that Westbrook is the better passer and defender, and makes his teammates better, and is the better overall player especially when you take into account how much more he gets paid?

Ok. I completely disagree on all accounts.

Now say what you believe.

Say "I believe Westbrook is the better passer" and then say "I believe Westbrook is the better defender".

Go ahead. Say it. I could use a good laugh.

I have no idea what you're going on about as I've never said anything about how Westbrook is better or worse than Rondo, just that your comment about Rondo being better for those two players because of your silly bias against Westbrook is nonsense. Because it is.

BballTim: firstly, I didn't say anything like that. I'm an OKC fan; I watch them regularly. Forgive me if I'm choosing to disregard the opinions of those who don't even watch the team enough to know that
Lamb and Jones have barely shared the court with Westbrook.

Unless you're going to cite actual, in-game examples of how Westbrook is actively impeding their development, that's unfounded nonsense. When people make the silly arguments about how Westbrook is holding OKC back, they at least refer to how he often doesn't defer to Durant when he probably should. This is useless, lazy speculation.

Jones clearly hasn't been negatively impacted by seeing Westbrook play defense considering… gasp, his very role on the team is as a utility defender who can guard positions 2-4. Lamb clearly hasn't been negatively impacted by Westbrook being a "ball hog" considering… gasp, when Brooks actually played him earlier in the season, he was often tasked with facilitating the offense for the bench since Jackson was starting in place of Westbrook. And both guys performed commendably in their designated roles.

If anyone actually bothers to watch OKC regularly, they'll know that the issues commonly cited with the team stem around the notion that Westbrook and Durant aren't a good fit. Not that Westbrook doesn't do enough to set up his other teammates.

As someone out in the Midwest who watches a lot of Thunder - because I like good basketball. and the Celtics haven't played any in a good while - you're on point completely in your evaluations. I enjoy your posts and I hope you continue posting.

Don't fall victim to the belligerance and the goading with this Rondo thing. You will find extensive efforts here to conflate his abilities and his performance, complete with statistical, uh, distortions that would do Karl Rove or James Carville proud.

  Your idea of a distortion is any statistic that doesn't agree with your view of the game. It's fairly amusing.

[BballTim]

I think you'd need to get rid of Scott Brooks and his offense if you wanted to swap Rondo for Westbrook and see the Thunder flourish.

Not that he couldn't help them, it's just that he's not the best fit for the team's offense right now. I think Lowe put it best, talking about the Thunder's O in the playoffs:

The Thunder’s offense remains predictable, without any continuity or natural second and third options. They are running plays, but the Grizzlies know what’s coming, and if Allen or some other player can kill the clock with artful ball denial, the Thunder are always up against it without a plan.*

*And yes, this brings out the worst in Russell Westbrook

http://grantland.com/features/nba-playoffs-winners-and-losers-round-one-2014/

The problems with OKC aren't things that can be fixed as easily as swapping out a player like Westbrook for a player like Rondo.

   Rondo would be much better in that situation than Westbrook. He's significantly better at things like running an offense, passing, finding open players when they aren't the first or second option on a play and the like.