RealGM

eatyourchildren wrote:
No, he's a complete player. Switch him out with any of the other top 10 point guards and their records stay the same or improve.

Spare me the nightmare.... don't want him.

evilRyu wrote:

eatyourchildren wrote:
No, he's a complete player. Switch him out with any of the other top 10 point guards and their records stay the same or improve.

Spare me the nightmare.... don't want him.

The nightmare of watching a guy actually play defense on your team every night?

It's amazing how people automatically assume Rondo will never get any better. He was the X-factor on an NBA Champion in his second season for Christ's sake. When he played bad, we struggled and many times lost (especially the first two rounds on the road). Next year is his third season, if you know anything about point guards you know that's a scary thought with this kid's talent and work ethic.

And since I don't read thsi board that often and I'm bound to probably receive hate for the x-factor comment, all I have to say is: It's no coincidence that we were so dominant at home throughout the playoffs and Rondo played much better at home.

On the defensive side some of you guys are spreading bogus information. John Hollinger, mister stats guy himself, rated Rondo the best defensive PG in the league for two years in a row, so clearly there is statistical evidence that the team is much better defensively with Rondo. Remember according to Hollinger we were something like the 3rd best defensive team of the modern statistical era, meaning while yes replacing him with house or cassell still led to haing a good defensive team, it didn't lead to having a historically great defensive team.

Lindsey Hunter laughs at this best defensive point guard in the NBA shennanigans

Hell, I'd rather have Rodney "When's the last time an NBA player has been named Rodney" Stuckey on my squad than Rondo.

You're telling me you wouldn't rather have mini Rodney on the Celtics? Someone who plays defense and doesn't pass out a wide open layup for a 3 pointer?

eatyourchildren wrote:Hell, I'd rather have Rodney "When's the last time an NBA player has been named Rodney" Stuckey on my squad than Rondo.

You're telling me you wouldn't rather have mini Rodney on the Celtics? Someone who plays defense and doesn't pass out a wide open layup for a 3 pointer?

I would still have Rondo. Yes we know he suck at shooting most games but he still is one of the best defensive players on the team and still gets the team into it's offensive sets very efficiently.

One thing that I've noticed in this thread is that people keep saying that if he were put somewhere else he would do worse. There are two teams where that would be true Cavs and Lakers as those are two teams that just need thei PG to shoot. Put him anywhere else and let him create and he would actually do a lot better. The defensive schemes used against him in the playoffs only work because he was the 4th option on the team. On any other team he would have the ball in his hands more leading to more assists and more penetration instead of having to clear out so the big three can do their thing. If Calderon could play defense anywhere close to him then that would be a player I would sub in for Rondo. But, as was shown with House and Cassell, just having a guy that's there to be a scorer does not work with what the Celtics want to do.

I have said this before in the thread but I'll repeat it here, I don't think he's top 10 but he's close. And I also think that as the big three decline more of the offensive burden will be passed on to him and then he'll really shine. He's much better on the ball than off the ball offensively.

I`ll admit that he`s a top defensive PG but I don`t think that makes up for the offensive disadvantage that he has compared to a lot of PGs. Defense at the 1 isn`t nearly as important as offense from the 1. Its not as if Rondo really guards swingmen either so the big defensive edge he has on guys like Calderon and Ford is more then offset by their offensive advantages.

I think he has top 10 potential but he`s not there yet. I`d put him closer to 15 then 10. And there is no way hes better than Miller. When Miller was traded for Iverson, the Sixers immediately became a solid team. You trade current Rondo for Iverson and no way does Phili have the turn around they did.

dsorc wrote:One thing that I've noticed in this thread is that people keep saying that if he were put somewhere else he would do worse. There are two teams where that would be true Cavs and Lakers as those are two teams that just need thei PG to shoot. Put him anywhere else and let him create and he would actually do a lot better. The defensive schemes used against him in the playoffs only work because he was the 4th option on the team. On any other team he would have the ball in his hands more leading to more assists and more penetration instead of having to clear out so the big three can do their thing. If Calderon could play defense anywhere close to him then that would be a player I would sub in for Rondo. But, as was shown with House and Cassell, just having a guy that's there to be a scorer does not work with what the Celtics want to do.

Are you really trying to argue that the reason that guys sag off Rondo is not because he's an offensive liability? If he had less options to go to on his squad, wouldn't that be even more reason to sag?

dsorc wrote:

eatyourchildren wrote: If Calderon could play defense anywhere close to him then that would be a player I would sub in for Rondo. But, as was shown with House and Cassell, just having a guy that's there to be a scorer does not work with what the Celtics want to do.

Are you seriously trying to compare House and Cassell to Calderon?

Calderon is fifth in the league [behind Nash, Deron, Paul, and Kidd] in nearly every assist stat [assist per game, total assists, assist rate] despite not only playing 6 less minutes than the average MPG the other four get, but also has very low usage rate at 16.9 compared to the average of the other four which is at 22.2 [heck, Calderon's usage rate is even lower than Rondo's which is at 18.9]

And he also threw up a disgusting 50/40/90 shooting line [52/43/91] and a TS% of nearly 61% [which is 10% higher than Rondo's TS% of 51]. Oh yeah, his AST/TO ratio is something disgusting like ~5.5/1.

Calderon can do a lot without needing the ball in his hands, is a incredible gifted passer and floor general, is an ace shooter and is the sheer definition of efficiency.

I'm probably getting all defensive over nothing, but you know I need to have my shameless Calderon plug in here somewhere.

In fairness, House played totally out of character this season and was a very able defender off the bench. I only watch the Raptors when they are facing a fun team like ORL or in the playoffs, or against us, or the Sixers wich is entertaing exchange.

But House consistently played defense on a level that Calderon has probuly never played in the NBA

Was House Lindsey Hunter? Hell no, but he was a very capable defender and gave us a boost there coming off the bench all year. Maybe it has to do with the complete change of pace he brought but he almost never got burnt and his positional technique was perfect and effective.

eatyourchildren wrote:

dsorc wrote:One thing that I've noticed in this thread is that people keep saying that if he were put somewhere else he would do worse. There are two teams where that would be true Cavs and Lakers as those are two teams that just need thei PG to shoot. Put him anywhere else and let him create and he would actually do a lot better. The defensive schemes used against him in the playoffs only work because he was the 4th option on the team. On any other team he would have the ball in his hands more leading to more assists and more penetration instead of having to clear out so the big three can do their thing. If Calderon could play defense anywhere close to him then that would be a player I would sub in for Rondo. But, as was shown with House and Cassell, just having a guy that's there to be a scorer does not work with what the Celtics want to do.

Are you really trying to argue that the reason that guys sag off Rondo is not because he's an offensive liability? If he had less options to go to on his squad, wouldn't that be even more reason to sag?

Look again. It's easy to sag when Rondo doesn't have the ball which is what happened as his man would just double the ball. When Rondo had the ball they couldn't sag because he was getting to wherever he wanted anyways. If Rondo was on a lesser team he'd be better or at least have better stats which is what people want to compare here.

T-Spot wrote:

dsorc wrote: If Calderon could play defense anywhere close to him then that would be a player I would sub in for Rondo. But, as was shown with House and Cassell, just having a guy that's there to be a scorer does not work with what the Celtics want to do.

Are you seriously trying to compare House and Cassell to Calderon?

Calderon is fifth in the league [behind Nash, Deron, Paul, and Kidd] in nearly every assist stat [assist per game, total assists, assist rate] despite not only playing 6 less minutes than the average MPG the other four get, but also has very low usage rate at 16.9 compared to the average of the other four which is at 22.2 [heck, Calderon's usage rate is even lower than Rondo's which is at 18.9]

How many assist opportunities would he get with the Celtics? Remember, the offense runs through the big three not the PG. Also, Rondo is faster/better penetrator so it's more likely he gets more chances in this case.

T-Spot wrote:And he also threw up a disgusting 50/40/90 shooting line [52/43/91] and a TS% of nearly 61% [which is 10% higher than Rondo's TS% of 51]. Oh yeah, his AST/TO ratio is something disgusting like ~5.5/1.

I don't think anybody will argue that Calderon is a better shooter than Rondo, hence why I compared to our good shooting PGs: House and Cassell.

T-Spot wrote:Calderon can do a lot without needing the ball in his hands, is a incredible gifted passer and floor general, is an ace shooter and is the sheer definition of efficiency.

I'm probably getting all defensive over nothing, but you know I need to have my shameless Calderon plug in here somewhere.

That rant was almost at the level of wiggles defending Rondo. Well done.

it's sad because I believe Rondo is a good player, but not in top 10, OP should stop this before Rondo becomes the most over-rated player in 2008

Rondo has a lot of upside. It would not surprise me if in the future he became an elite PG, perhaps a tier under the likes of Chris Paul and Deron Williams. That said, I do not believe that he is a top 10 PG right now; in fact, I believe he lies outside the top 15.

in the east alone Miller,Billups,Ford,Jose, harris, Gilbert
West: Parker,Baron,paul,deron,kidd,nash,AI

That's 13 right there clearly better than him. I'm pretty sure i can come up with 2-3 more if i actually looked it up but im too lazy.

"How many assist opportunities would he get with the Celtics? Remember, the offense runs through the big three not the PG. Also, Rondo is faster/better penetrator so it's more likely he gets more chances in this case."

And until Rondo is the one running the offense, he should not be mentioned as a top 10 PG.

microfib4thewin wrote:"How many assist opportunities would he get with the Celtics? Remember, the offense runs through the big three not the PG. Also, Rondo is faster/better penetrator so it's more likely he gets more chances in this case."

And until Rondo is the one running the offense, he should not be mentioned as a top 10 PG.

I agree on him not being top 10 yet. But I do think he's closer than some people give him credit for. He'll have his chance to truly shine in about two years when the big three start declining. By then I expect/hope he'll perform well enough to be considered top 10.

all i know is that alston > rondo. so there you go

"The mob" in this thread is acknowledging Rondo's defense, criticizing the holes in his game, placing him around the right level of PGs (Miller, Bibby, Calderon, Hinrich, Ellis, Alston, Harris), acknowledging that he is helped by playing with three all-stars, saying that he will be a top-10 PG soon, and possibly elite in the future.

What is wrong with this? It's a fantastic assessment. Maybe wiggles can explain?

The Main Event wrote:True, but using the same logic one can also assume that when their are big tree's all around the little tree won't get as much light. However; i completely agree that the environment that Rondo is in will only serve to maximize his potential as a PG. As i mentioned before, given his stature i could see him becoming a hybrid between Billups and Monta Ellis. A very strong defender with lightning quick speed to break down defenders and attack the bucket."

The Main Event should be hired to by ESPN. I don't think I've heard anyone work a metaphor into a transition that well since ESPN.com launched. "Little tree" to Rondo's "environment." Brilliant!

wigglestrue wrote:Which game...4? Because that's the only game the Celtics won in which Rondo wasn't starting and playing PG for most of the game. I mean, come on. COME ON. Eddie ******* House was a huge factor in the series...but Rondo wasn't??????? Eddie House was a major factor in winning a single game of the four we won, a game that eventually turned into his kind of let-her-rip atmosphere because the Celtics were down so badly and needed threes. Please tell me when Eddie was a major factor again, and if you weren't joking please tell me if you actually think Eddie House was a more important factor than Rondo.

Doc was consistently benching Rondo in 2nd halves of the finals for the more reliable shooting of House. Or he would put Posey in the game for his shooting/D and run Pierce and Allen at the 1/2. This lineup helped get the Celtics back in some games, or to succeed when things were getting tight. Rondo would tend to get minutes at less critical moments. This is just an observation. I know you're going to yell your head off about this, but I saw what I saw. And I typed this before seeing circushots post, who clearly saw the same thing.

Rondo > Hinrich

Hinrich is better on defense (gambles less), a better passer (more assist less to), and a better shooter. That makes him a better point guard, and player. He had a down year because his team was in turmoil before changing coaches. And that will always affect a PG the most. Look how different Kidd played under Frank and then Johnson in the same season.

Miller was traded for AI.

Harris was traded for Kidd.

Neither of these situations would have happened if the key player was Rondo.

A. Subpar shooting and indecisiveness are individual liabilities in his game.

B. Rondo is not himself a liability.

You followed this with some blabber on media hype, ESPN, and livestock. I'm not sure what that means, but... Poor shooting and indecisiveness make a point guard an offensive liability. This is not up for debate. It is a fact of basketball.

Malinhion wrote:Doc was consistently benching Rondo in 2nd halves of the finals for the more reliable shooting of House. Or he would put Posey in the game for his shooting/D and run Pierce and Allen at the 1/2. This lineup helped get the Celtics back in some games, or to succeed when things were getting tight. Rondo would tend to get minutes at less critical moments. This is just an observation. I know you're going to yell your head off about this, but I saw what I saw. And I typed this before seeing circushots post, who clearly saw the same thing.

This is true but then the question becomes why. In crunch time situations the ball was going to Pierce iso or Garnett in the post. Result is that Rondo's shotting deficiencies are enhanced due to the situation. So he wasn't being taken out because he's bad PG in the clutch. He was being taken out because he's not a good shooter.

This did not happen only in the playoffs. During most of the season the lineup at the end of games was House, Ray, Pierce, Posey, and KG. Does this mean Posey is a better big than Perkins? No but in closeout situation again Perkins lack of shooting skills would be exposed. It's a flawed argument.

Malinhion wrote:Miller was traded for AI.

Harris was traded for Kidd.

Neither of these situations would have happened if the key player was Rondo.

Instead what happened was that he was asked for in both the Ray Allen and KG trades but Ainge refused to give him up. I think there's more value in a player a team doesn't want to give up than one that they're willing to give up but maybe that's just me.

Malinhion wrote:

A. Subpar shooting and indecisiveness are individual liabilities in his game.

B. Rondo is not himself a liability.

You followed this with some blabber on media hype, ESPN, and livestock. I'm not sure what that means, but... Poor shooting and indecisiveness make a point guard an offensive liability. This is not up for debate. It is a fact of basketball.

I disagree. Additionally I disagree on some extent in the indeciveness. He is indecisive in the sense that he doesn't want to shoot but then again if you knew you were a bad shooter and were surrounded by good shooter would you want to shoot? In non-shooting aspects he wasn't indecisive. He's a good floor leader that gets the team into the offense quickly and is not afraid to boss around the big 3 if they're out of position.

That being said, there is no doubt he's an offensive liability off the ball because when off the ball shooting ability becomes more important. With the ball in his hands it's a whole other story because of his ability to get into the lane at will.

eatyourchildren wrote:Hell, I'd rather have Rodney "When's the last time an NBA player has been named Rodney" Stuckey on my squad than Rondo.

You're telling me you wouldn't rather have mini Rodney on the Celtics? Someone who plays defense and doesn't pass out a wide open layup for a 3 pointer?

I think bringing up Stuckey is very relevant. Would the Celtics have won a championship with Stuckey starting the point? I would guess yes. But Stuckey is no where near a top 20 PG.