Author Topic: We actually look better  (Read 50645 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: We actually look better
« Reply #165 on: December 20, 2014, 08:39:17 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
If we are better without Rondo than it was stupid to let him go right?  I suppose it is possible we might be a tad bit better now....like maybe just good enough to make the 8th seed. Is that the goal? Is that what is going to move us towards major contention?

Or was the way to contention to get better players?

Because in that case we could have let Rondo ruin the team for another year, thereby getting a much better draft shot, get a better player, and let Rondo walk.

Instead we got better and got some worthless stuff.

The anti-Rondo camp just keeps contradicting itself hoping nobody notices. It's not going to work.

Bingo.  Again, lol. ;D

Re: We actually look better
« Reply #166 on: December 20, 2014, 08:48:05 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13037
  • Tommy Points: 1762
  • Everybody knows what's best for you
I'm not saying that Smart is crap.  I like him a lot, but he's not even remotely close to Rondo, imo.
He is, in fact, VERY close to where Rondo was when he was 20, so...
Rondo was a great passer. Smart isn't. Rondo had savant type court vision and awareness. Smart doesn't.

Bingo.  The first time I saw Rondo in the preseason, he was incredible, whereas with Smart, I see a guy who plays with a lot of intensity, but is nowhere near Rondo in any facet of the game.  Not only can he not even finish layups against the most minimal amount of traffic, but he couldn't even make a routine bounce pass to Zeller yesterday for a dunk.  Actually, I'm sorry, I look at that pass as 'routine' now because Rondo made it look so effortless out there, even if he had to get it through two guys.  Smart has had a couple of great passes, and it certainly looks like he's picked up quite a bit from Rondo, but unlike our former captain, :'(, Smart hardly has eyes in the back of his head, to say the least.

TP - this almost made me tear up. I think we are going to realize just how much we took for granted Rondo's amazing passing ability (to go along with so many other positive facets of his game).

Re: We actually look better
« Reply #167 on: December 20, 2014, 08:49:23 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
From your posts, that's been the only logical conclusion, quite honestly.  I just don't understand why people were so willing to trade a guy like Rondo for, wait, what did we get for him again?  Oh right - nothing.  Unbelievable.
You mean the guy that couldn't average 10 ppg on a team where the top scorer is Jeff Green? What did you think he was worth, again?

They're living in the past. Too caught up in Rondo's performances from 2012 and older to pay any attention to his actual impact, or lack thereof, on the game now.

Beat LA, you constantly harp on the return being "nothing", but isn't that actually an indictment on Rondo? Ainge scoured the league and the "nothing" package you moan about is the absolute best he could get back. That says much more about Rondo's current status as a player, then it does about Ainge as a GM. If only Rondo were regarded as a better player, say a top 30 guy like you often claim, then surely the return would've been better. Would it not?

Nope.  I'm sorry, but this is all about Ainge to me, because for those of you who believe that Danny is such a great gm and that he was responsible for extending the window of the then-Big Three, the guy that you should be praising for our extended run is Rondo.  Say what you will for the guy, but if he hadn't grown into the player that he is today (and yes, I can hear all of you saying, "what, you mean a grossly overrated role player?"), we would not have achieved anywhere near the success that we did even as the Big Three aged.  It was Rondo who still made them look like world beaters.  It was Rondo who made their jobs so much easier when they could no longer consistently create their own offense, and it was Rondo who became our most indispensable player once Garnett got injured.  Ainge had plenty of chances to rebuild and retool on the fly, and he failed at each and every opportunity to give us a much better transition from one era to the next without all of this mess.  It never should have come to this.  Do you think that Ainge would have been able to get what he did (which I will always hate as a transaction just as much as this most recent one.  I don't care how many picks he got for them - those guys are legends, for which you never get equal value.  I'd feel perhaps somewhat better about those draft choices if Ainge could actually select good players, but he only serves to compound his mistake in this regard, imo.) for KG and Pierce if they had been playing with Deron Williams?  Right.  Do you think that Avery Bradley would have gotten anywhere near that turd of a contract had he not played with Rondo?  Right.

I know that Rondo might not have had the best defense this year, but Bradley hasn't been a shining star, either, and I think that a lot of that has to do with the fact that Garnett is no longer quarterbacking our defense.  KG made a 36 year old Ray Allen with bone spurs still look like a competent defensive player, for crying out loud, and that's really the point of all of this - those guys not only fit so well together, but they also made each other better players.  Danny had his chances, and he blew it.  Year after year after year.  The transition should have been a lot smoother, imo.

Whose front office traded for the necessary pick to select Rajon Rondo in the early 20s? Danny Ainge's.

So long as we're using hindsight, Danny Ainge offered the best package for Chris Paul only to be rejected and had David West slip through his fingers. As someone's sig around here says, imagine if the stars had aligned...

They may or may not win a championship.....

Well, we know for sure that we didn't win a championship with Rondo as the best player on the team. Maybe is better than definitely not.

Also, why isn't some of this criticism directed at Doc Rivers, who failed to get anything out of Courtney Lee and Jason Terry (and for some time, Jeff Green)?

You should have been here at least 2 years ago, lol.  Trust me, it was covered, to say the least.  Doc was a master motivator and great at drawing up plays out of timeouts (most of the time.  Eventually, he just started using the same 2/3 pick and roll with a flare screen for Ray every single time, even though everyone had figured out how to stop it.  Ugh.), but he wasn't a great coach, to me.  His unwillingness to play the young guys, while always favoring veterans, and his severe lack of knowledge regarding half court offense (did we even have one?) were on KC Jones levels, and he never changed his style of play in order to get the most out of guys like Jason Terry, who was a massive turd, but still.  Guys had to play his 'system,' which was prone to terrible turnover numbers, and he couldn't make adjustments. 

Re: We actually look better
« Reply #168 on: December 20, 2014, 08:51:30 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
From your posts, that's been the only logical conclusion, quite honestly.  I just don't understand why people were so willing to trade a guy like Rondo for, wait, what did we get for him again?  Oh right - nothing.  Unbelievable.
You mean the guy that couldn't average 10 ppg on a team where the top scorer is Jeff Green? What did you think he was worth, again?

They're living in the past. Too caught up in Rondo's performances from 2012 and older to pay any attention to his actual impact, or lack thereof, on the game now.

Beat LA, you constantly harp on the return being "nothing", but isn't that actually an indictment on Rondo? Ainge scoured the league and the "nothing" package you moan about is the absolute best he could get back. That says much more about Rondo's current status as a player, then it does about Ainge as a GM. If only Rondo were regarded as a better player, say a top 30 guy like you often claim, then surely the return would've been better. Would it not?

Nope.  I'm sorry, but this is all about Ainge to me, because for those of you who believe that Danny is such a great gm and that he was responsible for extending the window of the then-Big Three, the guy that you should be praising for our extended run is Rondo.  Say what you will for the guy, but if he hadn't grown into the player that he is today (and yes, I can hear all of you saying, "what, you mean a grossly overrated role player?"), we would not have achieved anywhere near the success that we did even as the Big Three aged.  It was Rondo who still made them look like world beaters.  It was Rondo who made their jobs so much easier when they could no longer consistently create their own offense, and it was Rondo who became our most indispensable player once Garnett got injured.  Ainge had plenty of chances to rebuild and retool on the fly, and he failed at each and every opportunity to give us a much better transition from one era to the next without all of this mess.  It never should have come to this.  Do you think that Ainge would have been able to get what he did (which I will always hate as a transaction just as much as this most recent one.  I don't care how many picks he got for them - those guys are legends, for which you never get equal value.  I'd feel perhaps somewhat better about those draft choices if Ainge could actually select good players, but he only serves to compound his mistake in this regard, imo.) for KG and Pierce if they had been playing with Deron Williams?  Right.  Do you think that Avery Bradley would have gotten anywhere near that turd of a contract had he not played with Rondo?  Right.

I know that Rondo might not have had the best defense this year, but Bradley hasn't been a shining star, either, and I think that a lot of that has to do with the fact that Garnett is no longer quarterbacking our defense.  KG made a 36 year old Ray Allen with bone spurs still look like a competent defensive player, for crying out loud, and that's really the point of all of this - those guys not only fit so well together, but they also made each other better players.  Danny had his chances, and he blew it.  Year after year after year.  The transition should have been a lot smoother, imo.

Whose front office traded for the necessary pick to select Rajon Rondo in the early 20s? Danny Ainge's.

So long as we're using hindsight, Danny Ainge offered the best package for Chris Paul only to be rejected and had David West slip through his fingers. As someone's sig around here says, imagine if the stars had aligned...

They may or may not win a championship.....

Well, we know for sure that we didn't win a championship with Rondo as the best player on the team. Maybe is better than definitely not.

Also, why isn't some of this criticism directed at Doc Rivers, who failed to get anything out of Courtney Lee and Jason Terry (and for some time, Jeff Green)?

Because it's all Rondo's fault  ::).

Not what I said...



Jay lookin like dat 'rim protector,' tho - all Mutombo style and whatnot, shoe, lol. ;) ;D ::)

Re: We actually look better
« Reply #169 on: December 20, 2014, 09:25:41 PM »

Offline vjcsmoke

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3173
  • Tommy Points: 182
LOL and then the game actually happened.  1st game of the non-Rondo era we score 114 points against Minnesota.  Turner got the start.  Kelly Olynyk led all scorers with 21.  And this without even the trade pieces even suiting up yet. 

I dunno, maybe Rondo is overrated after all.  Everybody was sharing the ball and we scored plenty of points to get the win.  Don't get me wrong, we're still going to be a bad team.  But we actually seem to play better without a ball-dominant point.

http://www.nba.com/games/20141219/MINBOS/gameinfo.html?ls=slt

sure does -- or doesnt he. I mean we have lost more games than won. He never carried the team with his scoring this season so its reather hard to say if he made a difference. Everyone says we have young talented players but I'm sure it will have a visible impact on a lot of the guys production. When Zeller had synergy with Rondo allowing him to score 15+ points a game. You now have 2 very similar players in Zeller and Wright (on the offence end) who will really struggle to score. Mark my words on that. Everyone who says Rondo didnt fit the team will have to admit that the same counts for Zeller and Wright in the Rondoless envirement. I would bet that if you compare the team and player stats from the point when Rondo was traded to the stats before that you will discover segnificant changes.

Team stats I expect to drop are shots per game, shooting %, points in the paint. Zellers, Bradleys and Greens points per game will take a hit along with their shooting percentage.

At times the starting 5 will stuggle to score the basket in proportions bigger and uglier than before.

If I had money I would put it on that. Its what I expect to come.

Best point guard option to go with now is Presey imo. He will at least hold the pace high and not pass as bad as Turner. Not sure if Smart help the offence in a decree close to what Presey can bring. So if I was Stevens with the strategy to play fast pace basketball I would start Presey now as bad as that might sound.  I'm just having trouble to imagine Smart doing that uptempo game with the quick passing. Hopefully its just because he hasent played that much with his injures.

Re: We actually look better
« Reply #170 on: December 20, 2014, 09:51:25 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
Yes, Smart is better than Rondo.

Most of the starting point guards in the league are.
Smart isn't a starting pg. He's so highly thought of by his coach that they started Evan T last night.

That's because of his injury. Smart is the face of the franchise and was way better than Rondo at the same age. Smart is the face of the franchise, but people are taking it out on him because Rondo, a flawed player who probably would've bolted in free agency, was traded.

Last I checked this was celticsblog not rondoblog, but you wouldn't know it judging by some of the shortsighted posts. Some Rondo fans have left (Tim? Tim?), but those that remain sound like dumped x's.

Oh, I think you've made it quite clear over time that this is hardly 'rondoblog.'  I also find it hilarious that you're making excuses for Smart due to a his 'injury,' which is an ankle sprain, but you wouldn't even remotely entertain the idea of extending that same courtesy to Rondo, who partially tore his acl. ::) Gimme a break!

Man, u don't believe in consolidating posts do you?

How long has it been since Rondo tore his acl? I get it, he's not 100% yet. How much longer should we give him?
« Last Edit: December 20, 2014, 10:01:07 PM by Eddie20 »

Re: We actually look better
« Reply #171 on: December 20, 2014, 10:43:57 PM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
If we are better without Rondo than it was stupid to let him go right?  I suppose it is possible we might be a tad bit better now....like maybe just good enough to make the 8th seed. Is that the goal? Is that what is going to move us towards major contention?

Or was the way to contention to get better players?

Because in that case we could have let Rondo ruin the team for another year, thereby getting a much better draft shot, get a better player, and let Rondo walk.

Instead we got better and got some worthless stuff.

The anti-Rondo camp just keeps contradicting itself hoping nobody notices. It's not going to work.

Bingo.  Again, lol. ;D

When you make up both sides of an argument, you only think you look good.  You are actually making a fool of yourself.  Are any of the people saying we'll be better without Rondo part of the pro-tank crowd?

If this is how you react to a pro athlete getting trading, I can't imagine the reaction when a girl breaks up with you.

Mike

Re: We actually look better
« Reply #172 on: December 20, 2014, 11:05:57 PM »

Offline Chris22

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5081
  • Tommy Points: 460
If we are better without Rondo than it was stupid to let him go right?  I suppose it is possible we might be a tad bit better now....like maybe just good enough to make the 8th seed. Is that the goal? Is that what is going to move us towards major contention?

Or was the way to contention to get better players?

Because in that case we could have let Rondo ruin the team for another year, thereby getting a much better draft shot, get a better player, and let Rondo walk.

Instead we got better and got some worthless stuff.

The anti-Rondo camp just keeps contradicting itself hoping nobody notices. It's not going to work.

Bingo.  Again, lol. ;D

When you make up both sides of an argument, you only think you look good.  You are actually making a fool of yourself.  Are any of the people saying we'll be better without Rondo part of the pro-tank crowd?

If this is how you react to a pro athlete getting trading, I can't imagine the reaction when a girl breaks up with you.

Mike

LOL

Re: We actually look better
« Reply #173 on: December 20, 2014, 11:18:36 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Someone mentioned before, its because Rondo can't contribute to scoring, we play 4 on 5 in half court offense.

Replace elite playmaking with role player scoring and now we're playing 5 on 5.  No negative loss for our offense.  Maybe a slight positive.
Rondo can't contribute to scoring? Let's see how much KO or Sully scores with Pressey passing to them now.

Re: We actually look better
« Reply #174 on: December 20, 2014, 11:21:21 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
If we are better without Rondo than it was stupid to let him go right?  I suppose it is possible we might be a tad bit better now....like maybe just good enough to make the 8th seed. Is that the goal? Is that what is going to move us towards major contention?

Or was the way to contention to get better players?

Because in that case we could have let Rondo ruin the team for another year, thereby getting a much better draft shot, get a better player, and let Rondo walk.

Instead we got better and got some worthless stuff.

The anti-Rondo camp just keeps contradicting itself hoping nobody notices. It's not going to work.

Bingo.  Again, lol. ;D

When you make up both sides of an argument, you only think you look good.  You are actually making a fool of yourself.  Are any of the people saying we'll be better without Rondo part of the pro-tank crowd?

If this is how you react to a pro athlete getting trading, I can't imagine the reaction when a girl breaks up with you.

Mike
A girl that breaks up with me? What?

Re: We actually look better
« Reply #175 on: December 20, 2014, 11:21:49 PM »

Offline Chris22

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5081
  • Tommy Points: 460
Someone mentioned before, its because Rondo can't contribute to scoring, we play 4 on 5 in half court offense.

Replace elite playmaking with role player scoring and now we're playing 5 on 5.  No negative loss for our offense.  Maybe a slight positive.
Rondo can't contribute to scoring? Let's see how much KO or Sully scores with Pressey passing to them now.

Pressey and KO have had good chemistry all along.

And tonight Dallas barely beat the Spurs without Parker, Duncan, Leonard, and Ginobili.

Rondo was 3 for 11.

Re: We actually look better
« Reply #176 on: December 20, 2014, 11:26:52 PM »

Offline Tr1boy

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27260
  • Tommy Points: 867
Someone mentioned before, its because Rondo can't contribute to scoring, we play 4 on 5 in half court offense.

Replace elite playmaking with role player scoring and now we're playing 5 on 5.  No negative loss for our offense.  Maybe a slight positive.
Rondo can't contribute to scoring? Let's see how much KO or Sully scores with Pressey passing to them now.

Pressey and KO have had good chemistry all along.

And tonight Dallas barely beat the Spurs without Parker, Duncan, Leonard, and Ginobili.

Rondo was 3 for 11.

KO plays much better without Rondo on the court. Last nights performance proved that. Last nights mid court alley hoop pass to Bass proved that

Re: We actually look better
« Reply #177 on: December 20, 2014, 11:28:08 PM »

Offline inverselock

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 437
  • Tommy Points: 44
Someone mentioned before, its because Rondo can't contribute to scoring, we play 4 on 5 in half court offense.

Replace elite playmaking with role player scoring and now we're playing 5 on 5.  No negative loss for our offense.  Maybe a slight positive.
Rondo can't contribute to scoring? Let's see how much KO or Sully scores with Pressey passing to them now.

Did alright yesterday w/o Rondo.

Elite playmaking is easily replaced by good team offense. 

Dallas were the leading team ppg with Ellis 4.7 ast/g, Nelson 4.1 ast/g, Harris 4.0 ast/g.

Re: We actually look better
« Reply #178 on: December 20, 2014, 11:29:41 PM »

Offline Rondo9

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5379
  • Tommy Points: 277
Someone mentioned before, its because Rondo can't contribute to scoring, we play 4 on 5 in half court offense.

Replace elite playmaking with role player scoring and now we're playing 5 on 5.  No negative loss for our offense.  Maybe a slight positive.
Rondo can't contribute to scoring? Let's see how much KO or Sully scores with Pressey passing to them now.

Did alright yesterday w/o Rondo.

Elite playmaking is easily replaced by good team offense. 

Dallas were the leading team ppg with Ellis 4.7 ast/g, Nelson 4.1 ast/g, Harris 4.0 ast/g.

Against the last place T-Wolves?

Re: We actually look better
« Reply #179 on: December 20, 2014, 11:34:29 PM »

Offline inverselock

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 437
  • Tommy Points: 44
Someone mentioned before, its because Rondo can't contribute to scoring, we play 4 on 5 in half court offense.

Replace elite playmaking with role player scoring and now we're playing 5 on 5.  No negative loss for our offense.  Maybe a slight positive.
Rondo can't contribute to scoring? Let's see how much KO or Sully scores with Pressey passing to them now.

Did alright yesterday w/o Rondo.

Elite playmaking is easily replaced by good team offense. 

Dallas were the leading team ppg with Ellis 4.7 ast/g, Nelson 4.1 ast/g, Harris 4.0 ast/g.

Against the last place T-Wolves?

We didn't beat the Knicks w/Rondo 2pts.

Everyone got excited about Ronso's assists totals against Phi, Det, Orl, LA.