Don't know what the Nets game has to do with it, I felt the exact opposite and reinforced my theory that Rondo is not as important in this roster as he's been in the past.
What we missed was perimeter guard defense, particularly when you start Barbosa with Terry together against one of the biggest and more offensive talented backcourts in all the NBA. Bradley could have filled in quite nicely here instead, but he's out also.
We have a very versatile team offensively as far as playmaking and ball-handling goes.
Anyways, while when Rondo is on the floor we're better, not having him is not going to break this team either in my opinion.
That said, nice game today.
Rondo plays in the nets game we win by 10+. There was a glaring need for rondo in the game from start to finish. Looking back, I couldn't count the times my friend and I said something along the lines of "imagine if rondo were playing" or "we are terrible without rondo".
Of course, by the same token, we would've won if Doc used the rotations smarter (put Lee in the starting line up), not played Green at the 4 against Humphries, etc.
It's the defense that let us down, and much of it can also be attributed to missing Bradley... and the aforementioned poor job Doc did in that game.
We only had a letdown offensively at the very beginning of the game and in the 4th quarter, which as we know has traditionally been a letdown for us offensively Rondo or not.
Can that offense be sustainable without Rondo? That's something to discuss, but I think with our current roster we're better prepared to go forward without Rondo than in years past. That's all I was saying, and I don't think the Nets game provides any proof of how much Rondo is important to this team because it didn't. But this has nothing to do with us being better with or without Rondo, all I'm saying that as we're currently constructed, missing him shouldn't break our team.
I'd be a bit more worried about KG and Pierce considering our replacements in those positions.