Rondo settling in now

[loco_91]

Too early to say exactly what Rondo's impact will be. The fact that he isn't struggling is a great sign, but it's also too early to say that he's made them better. Wright was a significant loss for them. Let's wait and see.

[soap07]

Not a superstar.  Just a winner.

What does this even mean? This is one of those overused platitudes that really doesn't mean anything.

[Eddie20]

Where did I say Rondo was perfect? And where did I say he didn't have to practice here? You chose to highlight that quote as some sort of indictment, I just provided the context. Next time, pick a better quote.

I didn't provide the quote, the author of the story did. And whatever context it comes in, it begs the question, "Why didn't you work as hard in Boston"?

Also,when you choose to say that you worked more in two days with your new team than you did for two months with your old one, you don't need indictments from old forum geezers like me -- you've already put foot in mouth quite skillfully yourself.

It's called exaggeration.  People do it all the time.  The article even acknowledges it by calling it "a stretch".  I hope you don't take everything said so literally.  You should also realize that Rondo missed all of preseason because of the hand injury and was projected to miss a couple weeks of regular season but worked hard and was able to get himself ready for the 1st game.   How about you produce some quotes by Ainge, Stevens or the other players indicating that Rondo was dogging it in practice to actually support your assertion?

Expecting Ainge, Stevens, or other players to say something negative about Rondo in practice or anywhere else is not realistic. It would be unprofessional and looking in the rearview.

  Just out of curiosity, why would you expect the "rearview" comments about Rondo to be any less negative than they were about Ray Allen? Do you think that the current team/coach is just that much more professional than Doc/PP/KG?

Allen voluntarily left to the enemy for less money while we were still in "win now" mode without compensation. Rondo was traded from a rebuilding team for compensation. Why would he harbor animosity?

[BballTim]

Not a superstar.  Just a winner.

What does this even mean? This is one of those overused platitudes that really doesn't mean anything.

  Which platitude were you referring to, superstar or winner? Because your statement would apply equally to both.

[soap07]

I think Rondo helps the Mavs. But he hasn't been playing that well with the Mavs, and we don't need to inflate his play our perceptions of his talent.

He's averaging 13 points with the Mavs on 14 shots. That's not any good. The assist numbers have taken a hit, but that's to be expected even if he was playing well.

But the fact that he's going to be passing the ball less, shooting the ball more - may not bode well for the Mavs longterm.

Overall, 13/8 on 43% shooting for a guy looking to get maxed...I don't know.

[soap07]

Not a superstar.  Just a winner.

What does this even mean? This is one of those overused platitudes that really doesn't mean anything.

  Which platitude were you referring to, superstar or winner? Because your statement would apply equally to both.

I guess? I think "superstar" is a synonym for "elite talent" - which Rondo isn't...which is fine, he doesn't need to be.

"Winner" means...someone who...has won?

[Donoghus]

Not a superstar.  Just a winner.

What does this even mean? This is one of those overused platitudes that really doesn't mean anything.

  Which platitude were you referring to, superstar or winner? Because your statement would apply equally to both.

I guess? I think "superstar" is a synonym for "elite talent" - which Rondo isn't...which is fine, he doesn't need to be.

"Winner" means...someone who...has won?

The way I interpreted that quote is someone like a Robert Horry or Steve Kerr.  Guys who have had championships as solid contributors on multiple teams.   Certainly not superstars but guys who have played a role on championship caliber squads.   I think there is some merit to that concept.  It's not just coincidence.

Can't really apply that to Rondo yet. 

[soap07]

Not a superstar.  Just a winner.

What does this even mean? This is one of those overused platitudes that really doesn't mean anything.

  Which platitude were you referring to, superstar or winner? Because your statement would apply equally to both.

I guess? I think "superstar" is a synonym for "elite talent" - which Rondo isn't...which is fine, he doesn't need to be.

"Winner" means...someone who...has won?

The way I interpreted that quote is someone like a Robert Horry or Steve Kerr.  Guys who have had championships as solid contributors on multiple teams.   Certainly not superstars but guys who have played a role on championship caliber squads.   I think there is some merit to that concept.  It's not just coincidence.

Can't really apply that to Rondo yet.

It is coincidence - or mostly a coincidence, I should say. Whenever people bring up Horry and Kerr, they neglect to bring up Antoine Walker. Walker played a very similar role on that Heat team, but probably didn't play the "winning" brand of basketball that everyone is used to.

[Donoghus]

Not a superstar.  Just a winner.

What does this even mean? This is one of those overused platitudes that really doesn't mean anything.

  Which platitude were you referring to, superstar or winner? Because your statement would apply equally to both.

I guess? I think "superstar" is a synonym for "elite talent" - which Rondo isn't...which is fine, he doesn't need to be.

"Winner" means...someone who...has won?

The way I interpreted that quote is someone like a Robert Horry or Steve Kerr.  Guys who have had championships as solid contributors on multiple teams.   Certainly not superstars but guys who have played a role on championship caliber squads.   I think there is some merit to that concept.  It's not just coincidence.

Can't really apply that to Rondo yet.

It is coincidence - or mostly a coincidence, I should say. Whenever people bring up Horry and Kerr, they neglect to bring up Antoine Walker. Walker played a very similar role on that Heat team, but probably didn't play the "winning" brand of basketball that everyone is used to.

What other team did Walker win a championship with besides MIA?

I don't think its a total coincidence that some guys have a knack for ending up on championship teams over & over again. 

[soap07]

What other team did Walker win a championship with besides MIA?

I don't think its a total coincidence that some guys have a knack for ending up on championship teams over & over again.

What difference does it make? Are you only a "winner" if you've won multiple championships? Does Pierce not have the same "winning" qualities that Kerr/Horry do?

Now, I do believe that Kerr and Horry had skills that are essential for a championship team. Horry was a good shooter, defender and could defend multiple positions Kerr was an elite shooter. That's why they helped their respective championship teams. It has very little to do with some "winning" quality they have.

[Donoghus]

What other team did Walker win a championship with besides MIA?

I don't think its a total coincidence that some guys have a knack for ending up on championship teams over & over again.

What difference does it make? Are you only a "winner" if you've won multiple championships? Does Pierce not have the same "winning" qualities that Kerr/Horry do?

Now, I do believe that Kerr and Horry had skills that are essential for a championship team. Horry was a good shooter, defender and could defend multiple positions Kerr was an elite shooter. That's why they helped their respective championship teams. It has very little to do with some "winning" quality they have.

No, I never said that you're not "only" a winner if you've won multiple championships but, in regards to the label that the original poster threw out there, it certainly helps the notion.

Pierce was also a superstar so the whole notion that was presented wouldn't exactly apply to him. 

I elaborated on the original point by illustrating guys who have won multiple championships on different organizations who have been labeled "winners" over the years.  It'd be tough to argue that a guy who has won 5+ championships isn't a winner, wouldn't it?  I also think that its not pure coincidence that guys like that kept finding themselves on championship teams.

I also think there are players out there who proved detrimental to their teams & never found themselves on winning teams.  I don't think that's a pure coincidence, either.

[BballTim]

Not a superstar.  Just a winner.

What does this even mean? This is one of those overused platitudes that really doesn't mean anything.

  Which platitude were you referring to, superstar or winner? Because your statement would apply equally to both.

I guess? I think "superstar" is a synonym for "elite talent" - which Rondo isn't...which is fine, he doesn't need to be.

"Winner" means...someone who...has won?

The way I interpreted that quote is someone like a Robert Horry or Steve Kerr.  Guys who have had championships as solid contributors on multiple teams.   Certainly not superstars but guys who have played a role on championship caliber squads.   I think there is some merit to that concept.  It's not just coincidence.

Can't really apply that to Rondo yet.

It is coincidence - or mostly a coincidence, I should say. Whenever people bring up Horry and Kerr, they neglect to bring up Antoine Walker. Walker played a very similar role on that Heat team, but probably didn't play the "winning" brand of basketball that everyone is used to.

  A similar role to Horry, Kerr or both? Do you think they played the same role for their respective teams?

[wiley]

Not a superstar.  Just a winner.

What does this even mean? This is one of those overused platitudes that really doesn't mean anything.

Guess I was using my own definition of winner.  A winner for me is someone
who rises to the occasion in big games more often than not.

I also said winner because for me a winner is usually, though not always, someone with
a very high IQ...

[LarBrd33]

Good win tonight by Dallas. Their offense seems to have recovered from the initial shock of integrating Rondo.

Interesting game tonight.  His shooting has been better so far (43%/37%/40%) and his assists are down (7.8 ) which suggests they aren't totally giving him the keys to the offense.  Will be interesting to see what his stats look like by the end of the year.  If Rondo doesn't lead the league in assists, can anyone still consider him the "best pure point guard in the league"?

Have you actually watched any of the games or do you just look at the box score?  No one but you were suggesting that Dallas was going to hand him the keys to the offense.  Dallas got Rondo for his defense and overall abilities.  Not only does Rondo the load share running the offense with Ellis but he also shares it with Barea and Harris to a lesser extent.  Dallas' cup runneth over with play making guards.  And to think the bashers said Rondo couldn't fit in with other players that need the ball.  I'd call Rondo "the best passing point guard in the league" and the way it is going in Dallas so far he should be also be called "the most versatile point guard in the league".  Maybe they actually have found their Jason Kidd 2.0.

I think the jury is still out whether or not Dallas is better after the trade.  We'll see what happens.

They'd be wise to continue letting Ellis control the ball since he's the best guard they have.  It will be interesting to see how Rondo makes an impact off the ball.  He's currently shooting 43%/38%/40%... if he keeps that up, he might not negatively impact them.  If Rondo continues to shoot 38% from three, though... that would be the biggest shocker of the NBA season.

[Jonny CC]

Not a superstar.  Just a winner.

What does this even mean? This is one of those overused platitudes that really doesn't mean anything.

  Which platitude were you referring to, superstar or winner? Because your statement would apply equally to both.

I guess? I think "superstar" is a synonym for "elite talent" - which Rondo isn't...which is fine, he doesn't need to be.

"Winner" means...someone who...has won?

The way I interpreted that quote is someone like a Robert Horry or Steve Kerr.  Guys who have had championships as solid contributors on multiple teams.   Certainly not superstars but guys who have played a role on championship caliber squads.   I think there is some merit to that concept.  It's not just coincidence.

Can't really apply that to Rondo yet.

It is coincidence - or mostly a coincidence, I should say. Whenever people bring up Horry and Kerr, they neglect to bring up Antoine Walker. Walker played a very similar role on that Heat team, but probably didn't play the "winning" brand of basketball that everyone is used to.

Are you seriously comparing Walker to Horry?!?!   That's laughable.