We still need a point guard

[BornReady]

Isaiah at the 2 was a desperate adjustment because our spacing was so poor with Turner or Smart playing off-ball. He played PG all season, and that's because he is a PG.

Do you think going forward, after he made the allstar team we can't bring him back to 6th man? That very well may be the case, but his best role on a contender is probably sparkplug off the bench. Like we always hoped Nate Robinson would have been for us years ago.

If we have IT as sixth man
Would we be splitting his mins with the starter
Cause IT is clearly are best PG and deserves to start
I believe that we can be a contender with IT starting
If you had a franchise player like a Durant to take some of the scoring load off so that teams don't just focus on Thomas, then we would do well

[LilRip]

If we're talking about needs, imo we need a scorer, shooters, and a mobile big man. We have perimeter defense in spades and we have playmakers across multiple positions.

[crimson_stallion]

During the playoffs we ended up putting IT at the 2 so he could score more and Turner basically was the 1 on O. Sure AB was out, but the problem of not having a real 1 is still there. I know I'll get a lot of rolly eye smily faces and one liners, but wouldn't Rondo solve this problem and be easy to get?

He just averages 12 points and 12 assists this year, shot a career high 37% from 3 and had 2 steals a game. 

He did recently say he liked Stevens and wished he had played for him longer.

He would have helped us against the Hawks.


I know the criticism against him (besides shooting) is that he needs to have stars with him. But maybe signing him would make it easier to bring in stars. However things shake out the team he could join next year would be a lot better than the one he was traded from.

The guard spot is a little packed (especially if you like Rozier and Hunter) but it could work as RR would be the only true point guard (maybe Rozier) and it would make at a lot easier to moe Smart, AB or IT in a trade for a star.


I would only be interested if, he really wanted it, he didn't leave on any bad terms and it was a good deal. But those things could all be ok and he could be an easy upgrade while we try for KD or DMC or Butler.


I know this idea won't be popular, so tell me, would you go for another guard or do you think we are ok as is?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Isaiah Thomas playing PG, and I think you might just be failing to understand the context behind that change by Brad Stevens.

The reason he moved IT to SG is because the defence was trapping IT every single time he touched the ball, and he had no choice but to pass the ball out to other guys.  The reason they were able to get away with doing that is because we had absolutely zero competent scorers on the court outside of Thomas.

Thomas would get the ball, drive, be met by 3 jerseys, pass out to an open Crowder - for an ugly brick.  Or he'd get trapped, pass to Sullinger...for a nasty turnover.  Or he'd get trapped, pass out to Jerebko, and then the Hawks would run at JJ because they know he can only really hurt you from three.

If Bradley was on the court they wouldn't be able to trap Thomas the way they did, because they couldn't afford to leave Bradley open.  If KO was healthy they wouldn't be able to afford to trap Thomas, because they couldn't afford to leave KO open.  If Crowder was healthy and shooting the ball as he normally does then the couldn't afford to trap IT because they can't leave Crowder.

The Hawks were able to trap Thomas because Jerebko and Thomas were pretty much the only two guys on the team who were capable of hitting outside shots with any consistency throughout the series.  When you can't hit open shots, the opponent can afford to ignore the shooters and throw extra defensive attention at attackers.  They threw everything they had at Thomas because they knew we didn't have a single guy on the roster who could make them pay for it.

Thomas is a PG - we do not need another PG.  Thomas just needs to have at least two other quality shooters on the court to stretch the floor so he can play his game.  Normally we have that, but with all the injuries in the playoffs, we didn't. 

Even Lebron would have struggled mightily in Isaiah's position in that series - no NBA player can score easily when you have 3 defenders loading up on you every time you touch the ball.  That's why it's so important in basketball to have guys who complement each other.

Lets not overract to our loss to the Hawks.  We lost with no Avery Bradley (who is more critical to this team then anybody seems to want to accept), no Olynyk, and an offensively crippled version of Crowder.  Yet we still took them to 6 games.

We need another scorer in our starting lineup.  Personally, I look to the frontcourt as the place we should focus on for that, since Bradley and Crowder are capable (if not great) scorers when healthy - but we don't have a single frontcourt guy who is a consistent offensive threat. 

Much as I hate to admit it (as I'm not at all a fan of his), Kevin Love would be a pretty nice solution for us.  So would Butler or (obviously) Durant.  We basically need to add a consistent 18-20 PPG scorer into our starting lineup to take pressure off Thomas.  The impact it would have on our team's success would be absolutely out of this world.

 

[Greenback]

We could also bring back Fab Melo but it wouldn't help the team.  This thread is trolling and a waste of time. 

[Hemingway]

We could also bring back Fab Melo but it wouldn't help the team.  This thread is trolling and a waste of time.

Oh just stop. I'm trolling to say the best assist guy in the league in and a very long time is available and we could have him (again) for not that much? If this is trolling the board has sunk.


There are a lot of great opinions shared here that disagree with me. And I've come around a little. I do get that the change for IT to play the 2 was because of injury/bad shooting. I do get that It is a good pg.

Rondo could be a luxary. I think the (i don't know what I can say here that won't get me a warning) fans can agree on that. But even if we do nothing else, and care about winning each season over picks, Rondo would have helped us. No matter the situation he will help us. The questions are 2: Can we afford him? and can we give him a big enough role to make it worth his time? There are a lot of scenarios where I think the answer to both is yes.


Let's talk winning aside. Lotto aside. Everything aside. Let's just talk about how much fun the games are to watch. Weren't they more fun with Rondo (yes aside from the half year when we absolutely sucked.) Remember the glee in Mike's voice as Rondo got close to 10 assists (he gave a running count for every single game) remember the playoffs? The showmanship? He was a ton of fun. I'm going to watch every game win or lose and Rondo makes this team so much more fun to watch. Hate away, but you got to give me that!

[Roy H.]

We could also bring back Fab Melo but it wouldn't help the team.  This thread is trolling and a waste of time.

Oh just stop. I'm trolling to say the best assist guy in the league in and a very long time is available and we could have him (again) for not that much? If this is trolling the board has sunk.


There are a lot of great opinions shared here that disagree with me. And I've come around a little. I do get that the change for IT to play the 2 was because of injury/bad shooting. I do get that It is a good pg.

Rondo could be a luxary. I think the (i don't know what I can say here that won't get me a warning) fans can agree on that. But even if we do nothing else, and care about winning each season over picks, Rondo would have helped us. No matter the situation he will help us. The questions are 2: Can we afford him? and can we give him a big enough role to make it worth his time? There are a lot of scenarios where I think the answer to both is yes.


Let's talk winning aside. Lotto aside. Everything aside. Let's just talk about how much fun the games are to watch. Weren't they more fun with Rondo (yes aside from the half year when we absolutely sucked.) Remember the glee in Mike's voice as Rondo got close to 10 assists (he gave a running count for every single game) remember the playoffs? The showmanship? He was a ton of fun. I'm going to watch every game win or lose and Rondo makes this team so much more fun to watch. Hate away, but you got to give me that!

Toward the end I think watching Rondo run the team was tedious and boring. Watching the Spurs and Warriors is exciting. Watching the 2008 Celts was exciting. Watching Rondo pound the ball was not exciting. I guess I don't find empty triple doubles to be that exhilarating. (Rondo's teams are 4-8 in the last 12 games he has posted a triple-double, going back to his Celtics days. His stats used to mean something; now they're empty.)

Did you know that the Kings have a better offense with Darren Collison as opposed to Rondo? It's not even particularly close. Rondo gets lots of assists, but he doesn't improve his teams anymore.

[PhoSita]

I have to say, I'm glad Rondo got back to putting up double doubles and triple doubles after his knee injury. I wasn't sure he'd be able to do that.

I just don't think he ever learned to adapt his game to where the league has headed.

Even back in the halcyon days of the Big 3, it's not like the offense with Rondo running the show was that great. But he was actually a decent defender back then. Now he's a pure stat chaser.

[Smart457]

I have to say, I'm glad Rondo got back to putting up double doubles and triple doubles after his knee injury. I wasn't sure he'd be able to do that.

I just don't think he ever learned to adapt his game to where the league has headed.

Even back in the halcyon days of the Big 3, it's not like the offense with Rondo running the show was that great. But he was actually a decent defender back then. Now he's a pure stat chaser.

Rondo might not be the point guard of today and his game relies heavily on having talented shooters around him but he would still be a great player if in the right system.

If you put him on an incomplete team he will not be the player to be able to complete it and be a standout. It's just not in his game to be a guy who can take over games. However, get him on a team that is well built and he can be the composer who pulls the right strings. He needs talent around him. In the right situation you could argue that there are not many point guards you want over him and in the wrong situation you could argue you would want over half the point guards in the league over him.

[Hemingway]

We could also bring back Fab Melo but it wouldn't help the team.  This thread is trolling and a waste of time.

Oh just stop. I'm trolling to say the best assist guy in the league in and a very long time is available and we could have him (again) for not that much? If this is trolling the board has sunk.


There are a lot of great opinions shared here that disagree with me. And I've come around a little. I do get that the change for IT to play the 2 was because of injury/bad shooting. I do get that It is a good pg.

Rondo could be a luxary. I think the (i don't know what I can say here that won't get me a warning) fans can agree on that. But even if we do nothing else, and care about winning each season over picks, Rondo would have helped us. No matter the situation he will help us. The questions are 2: Can we afford him? and can we give him a big enough role to make it worth his time? There are a lot of scenarios where I think the answer to both is yes.


Let's talk winning aside. Lotto aside. Everything aside. Let's just talk about how much fun the games are to watch. Weren't they more fun with Rondo (yes aside from the half year when we absolutely sucked.) Remember the glee in Mike's voice as Rondo got close to 10 assists (he gave a running count for every single game) remember the playoffs? The showmanship? He was a ton of fun. I'm going to watch every game win or lose and Rondo makes this team so much more fun to watch. Hate away, but you got to give me that!

Toward the end I think watching Rondo run the team was tedious and boring. Watching the Spurs and Warriors is exciting. Watching the 2008 Celts was exciting. Watching Rondo pound the ball was not exciting. I guess I don't find empty triple doubles to be that exhilarating. (Rondo's teams are 4-8 in the last 12 games he has posted a triple-double, going back to his Celtics days. His stats used to mean something; now they're empty.)

Did you know that the Kings have a better offense with Darren Collison as opposed to Rondo? It's not even particularly close. Rondo gets lots of assists, but he doesn't improve his teams anymore.

The bolded it what kills me. You had to go look that up. You had to go look that up with an agenda. Did you type "rondo sucks" into google or is there a rondohate.com (not to be confused with celticsblog.com)?

If triple doubles were so "empty" why don't more people get them? How many did we get in the playoffs? In the regular season for that matter? I don't need to look it up, I know Rondo got more that our whole team this year. I get the criticism of guys who haven't won. If someone says, "DMC has great stats but he has never brought his team to .500" I can't really argue with that can I? But Rondo has a ring. He has gotten to the finals another time. He has averaged a triple double for a series. Were all those games "empty"?

[Smart457]

We could also bring back Fab Melo but it wouldn't help the team.  This thread is trolling and a waste of time.

Oh just stop. I'm trolling to say the best assist guy in the league in and a very long time is available and we could have him (again) for not that much? If this is trolling the board has sunk.


There are a lot of great opinions shared here that disagree with me. And I've come around a little. I do get that the change for IT to play the 2 was because of injury/bad shooting. I do get that It is a good pg.

Rondo could be a luxary. I think the (i don't know what I can say here that won't get me a warning) fans can agree on that. But even if we do nothing else, and care about winning each season over picks, Rondo would have helped us. No matter the situation he will help us. The questions are 2: Can we afford him? and can we give him a big enough role to make it worth his time? There are a lot of scenarios where I think the answer to both is yes.


Let's talk winning aside. Lotto aside. Everything aside. Let's just talk about how much fun the games are to watch. Weren't they more fun with Rondo (yes aside from the half year when we absolutely sucked.) Remember the glee in Mike's voice as Rondo got close to 10 assists (he gave a running count for every single game) remember the playoffs? The showmanship? He was a ton of fun. I'm going to watch every game win or lose and Rondo makes this team so much more fun to watch. Hate away, but you got to give me that!

Toward the end I think watching Rondo run the team was tedious and boring. Watching the Spurs and Warriors is exciting. Watching the 2008 Celts was exciting. Watching Rondo pound the ball was not exciting. I guess I don't find empty triple doubles to be that exhilarating. (Rondo's teams are 4-8 in the last 12 games he has posted a triple-double, going back to his Celtics days. His stats used to mean something; now they're empty.)

Did you know that the Kings have a better offense with Darren Collison as opposed to Rondo? It's not even particularly close. Rondo gets lots of assists, but he doesn't improve his teams anymore.

The bolded it what kills me. You had to go look that up. You had to go look that up with an agenda. Did you type "rondo sucks" into google or is there a rondohate.com (not to be confused with celticsblog.com)?

If triple doubles were so "empty" why don't more people get them? How many did we get in the playoffs? In the regular season for that matter? I don't need to look it up, I know Rondo got more that our whole team this year. I get the criticism of guys who haven't won. If someone says, "DMC has great stats but he has never brought his team to .500" I can't really argue with that can I? But Rondo has a ring. He has gotten to the finals another time. He has averaged a triple double for a series. Were all those games "empty"?

If he had those triple doubles on a playoff caliber team they would had been for Ws. So I agree with you. Posters need to put some perspective into their claims otherwise the comments and stats are shallow.

[PhoSita]

I have to say, I'm glad Rondo got back to putting up double doubles and triple doubles after his knee injury. I wasn't sure he'd be able to do that.

I just don't think he ever learned to adapt his game to where the league has headed.

Even back in the halcyon days of the Big 3, it's not like the offense with Rondo running the show was that great. But he was actually a decent defender back then. Now he's a pure stat chaser.

Rondo might not be the point guard of today and his game relies heavily on having talented shooters around him but he would still be a great player if in the right system.

If you put him on an incomplete team he will not be the player to be able to complete it and be a standout. It's just not in his game to be a guy who can take over games. However, get him on a team that is well built and he can be the composer who pulls the right strings. He needs talent around him. In the right situation you could argue that there are not many point guards you want over him and in the wrong situation you could argue you would want over half the point guards in the league over him.

I think you would want a team well stocked with athletic defenders who can shoot and run, and a couple of bigs who can take advantage of mismatches inside.

Kind of like this Warriors team without Curry.

But it's so much easier to build an offense now around a guy who can shoot and attack out of the pick and roll. And if that guy actually tries on defense it makes things easier on the guys behind him.

Rondo makes roster construction harder, not easier, and he's not good enough anymore to justify the added challenge of incorporating him.

[Smart457]

I have to say, I'm glad Rondo got back to putting up double doubles and triple doubles after his knee injury. I wasn't sure he'd be able to do that.

I just don't think he ever learned to adapt his game to where the league has headed.

Even back in the halcyon days of the Big 3, it's not like the offense with Rondo running the show was that great. But he was actually a decent defender back then. Now he's a pure stat chaser.

Rondo might not be the point guard of today and his game relies heavily on having talented shooters around him but he would still be a great player if in the right system.

If you put him on an incomplete team he will not be the player to be able to complete it and be a standout. It's just not in his game to be a guy who can take over games. However, get him on a team that is well built and he can be the composer who pulls the right strings. He needs talent around him. In the right situation you could argue that there are not many point guards you want over him and in the wrong situation you could argue you would want over half the point guards in the league over him.

I think you would want a team well stocked with athletic defenders who can shoot and run, and a couple of bigs who can take advantage of mismatches inside.

Kind of like this Warriors team without Curry.

But it's so much easier to build an offense now around a guy who can shoot and attack out of the pick and roll. And if that guy actually tries on defense it makes things easier on the guys behind him.

Rondo makes roster construction harder, not easier, and he's not good enough anymore to justify the added challenge of incorporating him.

I agree. You can't hope he puts your team over the edge or try to build around him. It's very hard to fit him in. You have to have a team that is already solidly built like your reference of the Warriors. He would be the point guard version of Dramond green on that team.

[Roy H.]

We could also bring back Fab Melo but it wouldn't help the team.  This thread is trolling and a waste of time.

Oh just stop. I'm trolling to say the best assist guy in the league in and a very long time is available and we could have him (again) for not that much? If this is trolling the board has sunk.


There are a lot of great opinions shared here that disagree with me. And I've come around a little. I do get that the change for IT to play the 2 was because of injury/bad shooting. I do get that It is a good pg.

Rondo could be a luxary. I think the (i don't know what I can say here that won't get me a warning) fans can agree on that. But even if we do nothing else, and care about winning each season over picks, Rondo would have helped us. No matter the situation he will help us. The questions are 2: Can we afford him? and can we give him a big enough role to make it worth his time? There are a lot of scenarios where I think the answer to both is yes.


Let's talk winning aside. Lotto aside. Everything aside. Let's just talk about how much fun the games are to watch. Weren't they more fun with Rondo (yes aside from the half year when we absolutely sucked.) Remember the glee in Mike's voice as Rondo got close to 10 assists (he gave a running count for every single game) remember the playoffs? The showmanship? He was a ton of fun. I'm going to watch every game win or lose and Rondo makes this team so much more fun to watch. Hate away, but you got to give me that!

Toward the end I think watching Rondo run the team was tedious and boring. Watching the Spurs and Warriors is exciting. Watching the 2008 Celts was exciting. Watching Rondo pound the ball was not exciting. I guess I don't find empty triple doubles to be that exhilarating. (Rondo's teams are 4-8 in the last 12 games he has posted a triple-double, going back to his Celtics days. His stats used to mean something; now they're empty.)

Did you know that the Kings have a better offense with Darren Collison as opposed to Rondo? It's not even particularly close. Rondo gets lots of assists, but he doesn't improve his teams anymore.

The bolded it what kills me. You had to go look that up. You had to go look that up with an agenda. Did you type "rondo sucks" into google or is there a rondohate.com (not to be confused with celticsblog.com)?

If triple doubles were so "empty" why don't more people get them? How many did we get in the playoffs? In the regular season for that matter? I don't need to look it up, I know Rondo got more that our whole team this year. I get the criticism of guys who haven't won. If someone says, "DMC has great stats but he has never brought his team to .500" I can't really argue with that can I? But Rondo has a ring. He has gotten to the finals another time. He has averaged a triple double for a series. Were all those games "empty"?

Boogie makes his team better. I've cited those stats dozens of times. Rondo has made his last three teams worse. That's what I care about.  You seem to be ignoring that all of the Kings, Mavs and Celts were better with Rondo on the bench. Why do you think he'll reverse that trend?

And my "agenda" is pointing out that Rondo's run of empty stats means nothing, if his team is losing. But even then, it's not just the losing. It's the losing and making his team worse.

[Roy H.]

I have to say, I'm glad Rondo got back to putting up double doubles and triple doubles after his knee injury. I wasn't sure he'd be able to do that.

I just don't think he ever learned to adapt his game to where the league has headed.

Even back in the halcyon days of the Big 3, it's not like the offense with Rondo running the show was that great. But he was actually a decent defender back then. Now he's a pure stat chaser.

Rondo might not be the point guard of today and his game relies heavily on having talented shooters around him but he would still be a great player if in the right system.

If you put him on an incomplete team he will not be the player to be able to complete it and be a standout. It's just not in his game to be a guy who can take over games. However, get him on a team that is well built and he can be the composer who pulls the right strings. He needs talent around him. In the right situation you could argue that there are not many point guards you want over him and in the wrong situation you could argue you would want over half the point guards in the league over him.

I think you would want a team well stocked with athletic defenders who can shoot and run, and a couple of bigs who can take advantage of mismatches inside.

Kind of like this Warriors team without Curry.

But it's so much easier to build an offense now around a guy who can shoot and attack out of the pick and roll. And if that guy actually tries on defense it makes things easier on the guys behind him.

Rondo makes roster construction harder, not easier, and he's not good enough anymore to justify the added challenge of incorporating him.

I agree. You can't hope he puts your team over the edge or try to build around him. It's very hard to fit him in. You have to have a team that is already solidly built like your reference of the Warriors. He would be the point guard version of Dramond green on that team.

And yet, when he went to Dallas - a great offensive team where he was surrounded by shooters - he was a huge bust.

[Chris22]

We need size and shooting, not point guard.