We still need a point guard

[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"?

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.

It is just not true to say Rondo makes his team worse. I guess you can pull stats from a bad celtics team, a bad Mavs team for half a year and a bad Kings team to make your point. But it just flys in the face of common sense. He won so many games for us. This is ridicules! We are no longer talking about in what scenarios Rondo could or wouldn't be a good fit for us next year, we are now talking about how you think Rondo sucks and makes his teams worse. If he is so bad, why did he lead the league again is assists?

All your stats only show one thing, on a good team Rondo thrives and on a bad team they don't win. Ding Ding Ding. But we have a ton of assets. We might be able to bring in new talent like we did in 07. IF we don't we still have a ton of assets to try again at the trade deadline and next offseason and the deadline after that and the offseason after that. The point is, we possibly could have the best passer in a generation back for cheap. And I'm the one who looks like an idiot on here for saying it. 

[PhoSita]

That Dallas team had shooting, but they had an offensive system already in place that really didn't work well with  point guard like Rondo. And that team wasn't nearly good enough defensively or on the boards.

And it's not like that was a bad team. You'd just need a fantastic team in place that is really only missing a primary ball handler who can fit the ball in tight spaces and see lots of angles for passes.

[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.

It is just not true to say Rondo makes his team worse. I guess you can pull stats from a bad celtics team, a bad Mavs team for half a year and a bad Kings team to make your point. But it just flys in the face of common sense. He won so many games for us. This is ridicules! We are no longer talking about in what scenarios Rondo could or wouldn't be a good fit for us next year, we are now talking about how you think Rondo sucks and makes his teams worse. If he is so bad, why did he lead the league again is assists?

All your stats only show one thing, on a good team Rondo thrives and on a bad team they don't win. Ding Ding Ding. But we have a ton of assets. We might be able to bring in new talent like we did in 07. IF we don't we still have a ton of assets to try again at the trade deadline and next offseason and the deadline after that and the offseason after that. The point is, we possibly could have the best passer in a generation back for cheap. And I'm the one who looks like an idiot on here for saying it.

What evidence is there that Rondo can make a team better since his knee injury?

The 2016 Kings played better with him on the bench.

The 2015 Mavericks played better with him on the bench.

The 2015 Celtics (a playoff team) played better with him on the bench.

The 2014 Celtics played better with him on the bench.

The 2013 Celtics (a playoff team) played better with him on the bench.

Rondo hasn't improved his team since 2012. That's four seasons and one ACL injury ago.

[Roy H.]

That Dallas team had shooting, but they had an offensive system already in place that really didn't work well with  point guard like Rondo. And that team wasn't nearly good enough defensively or on the boards.

And it's not like that was a bad team. You'd just need a fantastic team in place that is really only missing a primary ball handler who can fit the ball in tight spaces and see lots of angles for passes.

Fantastic teams don't get to be fantastic by having a stats-chasing, ball-pounding PG. 

[Hemingway]

That Dallas team had shooting, but they had an offensive system already in place that really didn't work well with  point guard like Rondo. And that team wasn't nearly good enough defensively or on the boards.

And it's not like that was a bad team. You'd just need a fantastic team in place that is really only missing a primary ball handler who can fit the ball in tight spaces and see lots of angles for passes.

Fantastic teams don't get to be fantastic by having a stats-chasing, ball-pounding PG.

This is what is so silly, how are you stat chasing if your goal is to get assists? I'm beginning to understand where the Rondo hate around here stems from.

[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"?

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.

It is just not true to say Rondo makes his team worse. I guess you can pull stats from a bad celtics team, a bad Mavs team for half a year and a bad Kings team to make your point. But it just flys in the face of common sense. He won so many games for us. This is ridicules! We are no longer talking about in what scenarios Rondo could or wouldn't be a good fit for us next year, we are now talking about how you think Rondo sucks and makes his teams worse. If he is so bad, why did he lead the league again is assists?

All your stats only show one thing, on a good team Rondo thrives and on a bad team they don't win. Ding Ding Ding. But we have a ton of assets. We might be able to bring in new talent like we did in 07. IF we don't we still have a ton of assets to try again at the trade deadline and next offseason and the deadline after that and the offseason after that. The point is, we possibly could have the best passer in a generation back for cheap. And I'm the one who looks like an idiot on here for saying it.

What evidence is there that Rondo can make a team better since his knee injury?

The 2016 Kings played better with him on the bench.

The 2015 Mavericks played better with him on the bench.

The 2015 Celtics (a playoff team) played better with him on the bench.

The 2014 Celtics played better with him on the bench.

The 2013 Celtics (a playoff team) played better with him on the bench.

Rondo hasn't improved his team since 2012. That's four seasons and one ACL injury ago.

I guess nothing proves it. I'm just saying, give him a good team and time to get to know the guys he is playing with and the results are great.

I'm

Not

Going

To

Waste

Your

Time

With

A

List.

[Roy H.]

That Dallas team had shooting, but they had an offensive system already in place that really didn't work well with  point guard like Rondo. And that team wasn't nearly good enough defensively or on the boards.

And it's not like that was a bad team. You'd just need a fantastic team in place that is really only missing a primary ball handler who can fit the ball in tight spaces and see lots of angles for passes.

Fantastic teams don't get to be fantastic by having a stats-chasing, ball-pounding PG.

This is what is so silly, how are you stat chasing if your goal is to get assists? I'm beginning to understand where the Rondo hate around here stems from.

A possession that ends in an assist isn't automatically good for an offense. It's why Rondo's teams have struggled with him in the game recently, despite his robust assist totals. If a player is worried about his own stats, and declines to allow others to share the ball because he might not get his name in the box score, it's detrimental.

Four seasons, three franchises. Not once has Rondo made his team better relative to him being benched. Unless we want guys who actively hurt our team, we should stay away from Rondo. Let Vlade be a fool.

[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.

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

Who was the point guard there. Rondo or Carlisle? Also, that team was not that good. They were never going beyond the first round and if they did they were always going to be an easy out in the second round.

[Smart457]

That Dallas team had shooting, but they had an offensive system already in place that really didn't work well with  point guard like Rondo. And that team wasn't nearly good enough defensively or on the boards.

And it's not like that was a bad team. You'd just need a fantastic team in place that is really only missing a primary ball handler who can fit the ball in tight spaces and see lots of angles for passes.

This is really the reasonable answer for Rondo. It's inbetween the two extreme views you see online but it's right on. Put Rondo on a well constructed team and he will be great. The problem for Rondo is that doesn't leave him many choices for teams.

[Rosco917]

Please God not this again...

No Rondo

[LilRip]

I find this Rondo-needs-a-great-team argument flawed. IMO, if you put any decent player on any great team, they will likely look pretty terrific. James Posey, for example.

[CoachBo]

Please God not this again...

No Rondo

This blog's obsession with a player whose useful winning career is over never ceases to amaze me.

I agree entirely with you.

[Roy H.]

I find this Rondo-needs-a-great-team argument flawed. IMO, if you put any decent player on any great team, they will likely look pretty terrific. James Posey, for example.

Even then, nobody seems to be able to name a great team he'd fit well on.

I think he'd be a really poor fit on all of the league's current best teams (Warriors, Spurs, Cavs, Thunder, Clippers).  He just doesn't fit in a motion offense predicated upon ball movement.  He was put onto a team with a legitimately great offense, and he dragged the entire team down.

[mmmmm]

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.

Two things:  First off, Isaiah is not Nate Robinson.  They are two players I have followed closely over the years.  They are very, very different.

Second, this notion that Isaiah's " best role on a contender is probably sparkplug off the bench" is not based on anything that is real or has happened.

Isaiah has been a starter most of his career and his best numbers have been as a starter and as a starter he has made an all star team and practically carried this current roster into the playoffs.   

This is the NBA.  You win by having your best players on the floor for the most minutes.  The best way to do that in a conventional rotation is to start your best players.  That's what the vast majority of teams do.  Isaiah is by far our best PG.  He should start.

Now, if and when we get a PG who is better than Isaiah, he should move to the bench.  But we do not have that PG right now.  And when you look at our roster and where we are weak, it is not at the starting PG spot.  It does not seem to make a lot of sense to be talking about bringing in a new PG, given that it is _other_ positions on this roster that have been killing us this year.

I like Rondo a lot myself.  I do not see how it makes any sense to bring him back at this time.

[mmmmm]

[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.

QFT

Exactly.