Rondo and Celtics now 2-0 on the PG Road Trip From Hell.

[winsomme]

Really? Can you name some other point-guards in the history of the game who were defended this way? Honest question, it's very uncommon to see teams defend players like this - from active players, I only remember guys like Ben Wallace or Erick Dampier, but it seems it's much more common that what I thought. 

maybe not exactly the same, but there was sagging of GP in Miami's Title run and Avery in SASs Title run....

Not exactly the same is an understatement. Teams double off of opponent players all the time; completely ignoring a guard off-the-ball every half-court set is quite more uncommon.

also Cor, wouldn't you agree that Rondo's overall effect on the team is at the very least similar to Avery's in that Title season....

[winsomme]

and remember Cor that the question isn't is it unusual to sag off a PG like they do on Rondo, it is the burden created by that relative to the things he does well...

Haven't I answered this already? There's not a quantitative way of answering this type of question, if that's what you're looking for. I mean, what's exactly your answer to that question? That we couldn't have a better PG than Rondo?

And you can't keep on trying to limit the spectrum of the conversation. If someone argues that any other point-guard in this team would be guarded the same way , my question is more than fair and appropriate.  

that was my point when i noted that we are in no-man's land on this particular question....

you were the one that claimed that no one has showed you that you are incorrect...

how can anybody show you that you are incorrect when even you agree that there is no metric for this question.....?

[nickagneta]

 I'm happy to see no one is able to say where I am incorrect.

maybe the thing you are incorrect about is the weight you are giving to his shooting in relation to what he does well....

maybe the "magnitude" of the burden is what people disagree with...

I think the most important thing is to understand how bad is his shooting - often people don't entirely assimilate that, hence the Lebron James, Tony Parker, Jason Kidd, etc comparisons. Then the effect that his lack of shooting has on the team -  and I refer you to Jaycelts post. I always have to laugh when people like Nickcagneta use Rondo stats to prove that his lack of shooting is not that important. That's completely nonsensical. Ideas like "it doesn't make a difference" or that this team would be a lottery team without Rondo are completely absurd and grossly underestimate Rondo's flaws.

Okay since you are calling me out specifically, I respond.

Cordobes, your points that no one seems to be able to argue against in your mind are thus:

Rondo is still too wildly inconsistent and unreliable to be put on the top-tier class of PGs in the league. And if he was playing for a team where he was the best player or the 2nd best player, like many other top PGs are, I doubt people would see him as a future perennial AS.

Counterpoint: This is just plain and simply ridiculous. The top tier of PGs in the league this year contains: Paul, Williams, Parker, Nelson, Billups, Harris and Rondo. Mix them up in any order you want but for the most part those are pretty much a consensus around the league as the top PGs in the league. The fact that Rondo has more steals, more assists, more rebounds and a higher FG% than most of these players would point to the fact that he probably isn't in the last position when discussing where he falls on this list.

And the fact that he has 3 Hall of Fame scorers on his team actually contributes significantly to him shooting much less than these other PGs and hence scoring less. If he was the #2 guy on his team, Rondo could easily be looking for more of his own offense and scoring much more. And since people love points when judging players(hence why people think TMac and Vince Carter and players of that ilk are so great) if Rondo scored more he would be getting a ton more press and more discussion as a perrenial All Star because in today's NBA points are more important in marketing a player than a player's overall game is.

Of course he has been inconsistent, there were some series of games where he was a tremendous liability on the floor.

Please point to the multiple(some) series of games that Rondo was a tremendous liability to this team this year. May definition of series of games is 3-4 minimum. Maybe your definition is different, like one or two games in a row, I don't know. But please state specifically those multiple(some) series of games where Rondo was a tremendous liability to this team. I seriously doubt you can do it.

Rondo's weaknesses are too obvious compared with the true great players in the league.

Weaknesses? Weaknesses? All you mention is his outside shooting, which by the way, I have admitted he is bad at. But where are all these other weaknesses. For crying out loud the kid is 22. He has a great handle on the ball. He can dish like few others. He's the fastest guy in the league. He is a very good defender with lightening quick hands. He is a very good finisher, percentage-wise, around the rim. Actually one of the best. He is an outstanding rebounder for being all of 6'1" tall. Weaknesses? Weaknesses?

Here's a couple:

He's sometimes too overconfident and because of that showboats too much costing his team possessions.

He sometimes overdribbles causing him to lose the ball.

He is such a great passer that at times he tries passes that he probably shouldn't.

His quickness of foot and of hand makes him gamble to much trying to poke balls out from behind.

Of course, those things are also strengths. Convidence, his dribbling ability, his quickness and his spectacular passing are strengths that lead to weaknesses. But other than that his one true weakness is his shooting, from mid range, long range and the free throw line. I don't see much more than that.


And as for your argument that he is such a huge detriment to this team offensively because he can't his the outside shot consistently, again that is ridiculous. The team is 5th in offensive efficiency and were in the top 2 or 3 last year. They are third in eFG%. They are third in assists. They are second in assist per FGA. They are 2nd in TS%. They are 9th in total points scored even though the are in the bottom half of the league in pace. They are 2nd in FG% and 3rd in 3PTFG%. They are third in the league in Points Per Shot.

By any metric you want to measure, Rondo is not a huge detriment to the offense of this team. The concept is absurd. You point out one very specific team with a very specific type of player playing a very specific type of defense that you claim makes Rondo a huge offensive detriment to this team. Yet they still managed to shoot 46% in those two whole games against LA and average 96 points per game. A lot of things contributed to the Celtics losing those games and right at the top is not Rondo not being able to hit the outside shot. That would defense especially late in those games and missing open looks at the beginning of both games.

[Toine43]

And in terms of the tone of your posts, most people when talking about a given subject attempt to talk about the entire picture. I don't think you made much of an effort to do that. In most of your posts you just bashed Rondo's flaws without acknowledging any of his positives.

Really? I advise you to re-read the thread. I expressly pointed that Rondo makes up for his flaws due to how good he's doing everything else. Then, I invite you to show us where's the "entire picture" in the hyperbolic OP. I mean, saying that without Rondo this team would be 12/43, or that he "easily bested" Chris Paul, or that leaving him out of the ASG was a "colossal mistake", or that his flaws aren't notorious because "LeBron James isn't a great jump-shooter either" doesn't bother you but stating things you don't disagree with does because I don't drop a "oh, but Rondo is great" line in every freaking post?

Yup, I read the whole thread twice before making this post. And up until the post I made, you had roughly 10 posts bashing Rondo's jump shooting, with 1 tiny side note that the rest of his game is great. And like BBallTim stated earlier, I'm not a real big fan of the "misrespresent my past posts in a condensed sarcastic sentence" ploy. You clearly have no tolerance for those who disagree with you, even to the slightest degree, and you can label the other people all you want, but it's clear that the problem here is you.

[cordobes]

And in terms of the tone of your posts, most people when talking about a given subject attempt to talk about the entire picture. I don't think you made much of an effort to do that. In most of your posts you just bashed Rondo's flaws without acknowledging any of his positives.

Really? I advise you to re-read the thread. I expressly pointed that Rondo makes up for his flaws due to how good he's doing everything else. Then, I invite you to show us where's the "entire picture" in the hyperbolic OP. I mean, saying that without Rondo this team would be 12/43, or that he "easily bested" Chris Paul, or that leaving him out of the ASG was a "colossal mistake", or that his flaws aren't notorious because "LeBron James isn't a great jump-shooter either" doesn't bother you but stating things you don't disagree with does because I don't drop a "oh, but Rondo is great" line in every freaking post?

Yup, I read the whole thread twice before making this post. And up until the post I made, you had roughly 10 posts bashing Rondo's jump shooting, with 1 tiny side note that the rest of his game is great. And like BBallTim stated earlier, I'm not a real big fan of the "misrespresent my past posts in a condensed sarcastic sentence" ploy. You clearly have no tolerance for those who disagree with you, even to the slightest degree, and you can label the other people all you want, but it's clear that the problem here is you.

I still don't understand your point. Are you interested in discussing basketball or not? If you don't agree with anything I said, just refute it in order to allow me to counter-argument. I don't have time or patience for this kind of personal and ad hominem arguments that have nothing to do with the subject. I wasn't "bashing" Rondo's jump-shots, only stating facts - I mean, you confessed you agree with them! If you want to keep on making personal remarks, go on but pardon me when I don't answer you again.

[soap07]

And the fact that he has 3 Hall of Fame scorers on his team actually contributes significantly to him shooting much less than these other PGs and hence scoring less. If he was the #2 guy on his team, Rondo could easily be looking for more of his own offense and scoring much more. And since people love points when judging players(hence why people think TMac and Vince Carter and players of that ilk are so great) if Rondo scored more he would be getting a ton more press and more discussion as a perrenial All Star because in today's NBA points are more important in marketing a player than a player's overall game is.

Due respect, I don't think this is accurate in the least. Rondo is a very good point guard right now, not great. I don't think that he doesn't get his points because he has three HOF players on his team, and therefore has to sacrifice. Honestly, he could not get to the rim on a daily basis to score more even if he had more of a scoring role. Opposing defenders already give him ten feet of room so he would drive right into the heart of the defense and get his shot block. It's not like he draws a lot of contact. Even if he does draw contact, he's not a good free throw shooter.

[soap07]

And as for your argument that he is such a huge detriment to this team offensively because he can't his the outside shot consistently, again that is ridiculous. The team is 5th in offensive efficiency and were in the top 2 or 3 last year. They are third in eFG%. They are third in assists. They are second in assist per FGA. They are 2nd in TS%. They are 9th in total points scored even though the are in the bottom half of the league in pace. They are 2nd in FG% and 3rd in 3PTFG%. They are third in the league in Points Per Shot.

I think you're misrepresenting his point. His point, at least I believe, was that Rondo can be a huge detriment to the team offensively because he can't hit his outside shot...not that he is. There is a difference. How could you deny that Rondo's lack of shooting ability can be a huge detriment to the team? Ie. Christmas Day? No one is saying the Celtics offense is bad. How about the Knicks game where D'Antoni put Jeffries on Rondo?

[soap07]

He's sometimes too overconfident and because of that showboats too much costing his team possessions.

He sometimes overdribbles causing him to lose the ball.

He is such a great passer that at times he tries passes that he probably shouldn't.

His quickness of foot and of hand makes him gamble to much trying to poke balls out from behind.


I think you left out a key weakness which is when Rondo is far too tentative with the basketball and when he's not attacking. Rivers has noted this numerous times - as have we, as fans. We all love Rondo. I just don't think it's ridiculous to believe he's not a top tier point guard yet. He will be there though, probably within the next year or two.

[Toine43]

And in terms of the tone of your posts, most people when talking about a given subject attempt to talk about the entire picture. I don't think you made much of an effort to do that. In most of your posts you just bashed Rondo's flaws without acknowledging any of his positives.

Really? I advise you to re-read the thread. I expressly pointed that Rondo makes up for his flaws due to how good he's doing everything else. Then, I invite you to show us where's the "entire picture" in the hyperbolic OP. I mean, saying that without Rondo this team would be 12/43, or that he "easily bested" Chris Paul, or that leaving him out of the ASG was a "colossal mistake", or that his flaws aren't notorious because "LeBron James isn't a great jump-shooter either" doesn't bother you but stating things you don't disagree with does because I don't drop a "oh, but Rondo is great" line in every freaking post?

Yup, I read the whole thread twice before making this post. And up until the post I made, you had roughly 10 posts bashing Rondo's jump shooting, with 1 tiny side note that the rest of his game is great. And like BBallTim stated earlier, I'm not a real big fan of the "misrespresent my past posts in a condensed sarcastic sentence" ploy. You clearly have no tolerance for those who disagree with you, even to the slightest degree, and you can label the other people all you want, but it's clear that the problem here is you.

I still don't understand your point. Are you interested in discussing basketball or not? If you don't agree with anything I said, just refute it in order to allow me to counter-argument. I don't have time or patience for this kind of personal and ad hominem arguments that have nothing to do with the subject. I wasn't "bashing" Rondo's jump-shots, only stating facts - I mean, you confessed you agree with them! If you want to keep on making personal remarks, go on but pardon me when I don't answer you again.

I find it comical that you take offense at personal remarks when this thread is already chock-full of personal digs. Ironically, the personal comments that you complain about are your biggest problem. You see, you simply can't resist making a post without adding in a little jab on the side, something unnecessary that will only be good for stirring things up.

I have read and re-read this entire thread, and it really is a complete mess. And in my judgement, that is mostly or completely due to poor communication by you, and your unwillingness to agree on even the smallest issues. There was so much bickering over little points out of lack of clarity on what the overriding question at hand was, that this discussion didn't accomplish anything at all.


But hey, I enjoy fresh starts. Let's forget all the shots that I just took at you and you took at me, and restart this thread. Here's what I want to do, just so we can either agree to agree or agree to disagree. No matter what, I want some closure. Out of all the minute and broad issues that have been discussed in this thread, pick the one issue that you feel best represents what we're actually debating here. Then, make your point. I will reply with my point. Then, we will be done.

[cordobes]

Counterpoint: This is just plain and simply ridiculous.

All right. That's a very strong argument.

And the fact that he has 3 Hall of Fame scorers on his team actually contributes significantly to him shooting much less than these other PGs and hence scoring less. If he was the #2 guy on his team, Rondo could easily be looking for more of his own offense and scoring much more.

It also helps him to have much better looks to score. I mean, he's never the one being doubled. Heck, he gets ton of open looks precisely because he's the 4th best player in his team, not the best one. I'm fairly certain Rondo's efficiency would nose-dive if he was the fist scoring option of his team. Or his assists. Or his defensive energy. Etc. etc.

But please state specifically those multiple(some) series of games where Rondo was a tremendous liability to this team. I seriously doubt you can do it.

I don't have the patience to go look for this stuff. From the top of my head, I remember those consecutive losses with the Knicks, Bobcats and Rockets where he was horrible, that stretch at the start of the season that prompted JR Giddens to start that (in)famous thread (the game at the Conseco Fieldhouse, plus another one around the loss to Denver (that OT at MIL where Ridnour completely outplayed him). I can certainly find plenty of bad games looking if I check a game log.

We certainly see things differently though: you believe Rondo completely dominated Paul; personally I believe Rondo was extremely poor for the first 3 quarters of that game. As someone, not me, asked "I mean really, honestly, how do you give him any credit for that win?" 

But other than that his one true weakness is his shooting, from mid range, long range and the free throw line. I don't see much more than that.

Yeah, we see things differently. For example, for me the fact that a player struggles to finish with his off hand is a weakness on his game.

The team is 5th in offensive efficiency and were in the top 2 or 3 last year.

They were the 10th last season. I firmly believe this team would be the best offensive team in the NBA if the opponents didn't have the luxury of leaving Rondo unguarded in half-court sets.

By any metric you want to measure, Rondo is not a huge detriment to the offense of this team. The concept is absurd

Okay, it's absurd... However, I've seen Rondo's lack of shooting being a detriment to the offense of this team. I've seen plenty of plays where Rondo lack of a jumper hurt the team. This is probably semantics - I believe Pierce's being so turnover prone can also be a detriment to this team. I also believe Pierce is one of the best offensive players in the league. I can't understand what's the scandal with this.

ou point out one very specific team with a very specific type of player playing a very specific type of defense that you claim makes Rondo a huge offensive detriment to this team.

Uh? What specific team and specific player?

Look, I'll try to put this very simple:
- if your team has a player that the other team leaves unguarded when he's off-the-ball, that constitutes a big negative factor in your offense.

I have no idea how can anyone disagree with the previous sentence. If it was said about some other player in the league, playing for another team, everybody would wholeheartedly agree with it.

I understand you sustain some radical views on this subject, believing that this team wouldn't have more than 13 wins if Rondo wasn't playing, but you have to accept people can appreciate Rondo without sharing your extreme opinions.

[cordobes]

I find it comical that you take offense at personal remarks when this thread is already chock-full of personal digs.

But I didn't take offense, I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I just stated I didn't care about them.

And in my judgement, that is mostly or completely due to poor communication by you, and your unwillingness to agree on even the smallest issues.

I'm sorry for that, I didn't know that was happening. English is not my native language, that's probably the reason.

Out of all the minute and broad issues that have been discussed in this thread, pick the one issue that you feel best represents what we're actually debating here.

That's what I've been asking you: do you disagree with anything I said basketball-related? Personally, I've been talking about how the OP and many people overlook the impact that having a guard that other teams left unguarded (as a consequence of his lack of shooting), hence overrating Rondo's offensive prowess. For example, Rondo's boxscore stats don't show this effect, therefore are a skewed metric of his contributions. But one can discusse another lateral issues, that's not the point; I just need to know what's exactly your point of contention. If I'm not mistaken, everything you said about Rondo was that you agreed Rondo's a very bad jumpshooter, that this fact is a negative for the team, makes the life harder for Rondo's teammates and that the Celtics be better if Rondo could shoot better. We basically agree on everything, so I think we can move on and close this chapter.

[cordobes]

I think you left out a key weakness which is when Rondo is far too tentative with the basketball and when he's not attacking. Rivers has noted this numerous times - as have we, as fans. We all love Rondo. I just don't think it's ridiculous to believe he's not a top tier point guard yet. He will be there though, probably within the next year or two.

Agreed. But with a more reliable jumper, he'd be far less tentative as that would open his game by clearing passing and driving lanes. That's why I focus so much on his shooting. He's so good doing lots of other things that he'd be nearly unstoppable if opponents were forced to play him close and straight up.

[Toine43]

I find it comical that you take offense at personal remarks when this thread is already chock-full of personal digs.

But I didn't take offense, I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I just stated I didn't care about them.

And in my judgement, that is mostly or completely due to poor communication by you, and your unwillingness to agree on even the smallest issues.

I'm sorry for that, I didn't know that was happening. English is not my native language, that's probably the reason.

Out of all the minute and broad issues that have been discussed in this thread, pick the one issue that you feel best represents what we're actually debating here.

That's what I've been asking you: do you disagree with anything I said basketball-related? Personally, I've been talking about how the OP and many people overlook the impact that having a guard that other teams left unguarded (as a consequence of his lack of shooting), hence overrating Rondo's offensive prowess. For example, Rondo's boxscore stats don't show this effect, therefore are a skewed metric of his contributions. But one can discusse another lateral issues, that's not the point; I just need to know what's exactly your point of contention. If I'm not mistaken, everything you said about Rondo was that you agreed Rondo's a very bad jumpshooter, that this fact is a negative for the team, makes the life harder for Rondo's teammates and that the Celtics be better if Rondo could shoot better. We basically agree on everything, so I think we can move on and close this chapter.

I've tried to respond to this in a number of different ways, but I'm just going to go ahead and give up. It really is useless. Trust me, there are a lot of areas that we disagree on, but honestly trying to pinpoint those is giving me so much of a headache that I simply cannot do it anymore. Perhaps I will revisit this tomorrow and come up with a better way to make my point but for now I'm just going to give up.

I think one thing that may be giving my brain error messages is your simultaneous insistence that you agree with people on everything, and your overemphasis of Rondo's flaws. You just continously harp over and over again on how his flaws hold back the other players, and then every once in a while sneaking in a sentence basically saying, "oh yeah, by the way, Rondo's really good." I mean, when you say Rondo's box score stats are a skewed metric of his contributions, what do you mean by that? For God's sake, he's the glue that holds the team together. If anything, his box score stats underrate his contributions. Okay, I'm ranting and going in circles. I guess that kind of symbolizes the direction that this entire thread has gone.
Bottom line, for the future, if you want people to more easily agree with what you say, try to be a tad more understanding of where others are coming from. Your narrow-mindedness in this thread was pretty disgusting to me.

[Fafnir]

I really don't see why criticism of Rondo upsets people so much. Especially when said critics acknowledge that Rondo is a very good player.

This thread got very personal somehow, it didn't need to be.

[nickagneta]

Counterpoint: This is just plain and simply ridiculous.

All right. That's a very strong argument.

No, it is a comment regarding your comment on his shooting precluding him from being amongst the top tier PGs. My argument against your point was made right after that comment and, of course, instead of addressing my point you sarcastically comment on my observation of your comment. You said for someone to point out where you were wrong in your observations. I did and you ignored it completely.

And the fact that he has 3 Hall of Fame scorers on his team actually contributes significantly to him shooting much less than these other PGs and hence scoring less. If he was the #2 guy on his team, Rondo could easily be looking for more of his own offense and scoring much more.

It also helps him to have much better looks to score. I mean, he's never the one being doubled. Heck, he gets ton of open looks precisely because he's the 4th best player in his team, not the best one. I'm fairly certain Rondo's efficiency would nose-dive if he was the fist scoring option of his team. Or his assists. Or his defensive energy. Etc. etc.

Why are you so sure? Does Mo Williams' effectiveness diminish because he is double teamed sooooooo much because he is the #2 option on his team. What about Pau Gasol? Or Chauncey Billups? Or Andre Miller? Or Tony Parker? Or Jameer Nelson? Or Devin Harris? Just because a few team's have tried to play off Rondo and double others doesn't mean that if he was a #2 scoring option that other teams would automatically double team him. In fact, most team's only double true top tier superstars and almost no one else.

But please state specifically those multiple(some) series of games where Rondo was a tremendous liability to this team. I seriously doubt you can do it.

I don't have the patience to go look for this stuff. From the top of my head, I remember those consecutive losses with the Knicks, Bobcats and Rockets where he was horrible, that stretch at the start of the season that prompted JR Giddens to start that (in)famous thread (the game at the Conseco Fieldhouse, plus another one around the loss to Denver (that OT at MIL where Ridnour completely outplayed him). I can certainly find plenty of bad games looking if I check a game log.

We certainly see things differently though: you believe Rondo completely dominated Paul; personally I believe Rondo was extremely poor for the first 3 quarters of that game. As someone, not me, asked "I mean really, honestly, how do you give him any credit for that win?"

We must see things diffenrently because I don't see that Charlotte game as Rondo being some huge detriment to the team or even being a horrible game for him. He was solid but had some bad turnovers against Charlotte, that's it. If 2 out of three games constsitutes a bad series of games, well then, you are right. Personally, I think I can find 2 out of three games where Pierce, Allen and Garnett were horrible too. So they must also be huge detriments to this team as well and had some series of horrible play.

 

But other than that his one true weakness is his shooting, from mid range, long range and the free throw line. I don't see much more than that.

Yeah, we see things differently. For example, for me the fact that a player struggles to finish with his off hand is a weakness on his game.

We must see things differently because 90% of the league struggles to finish with thier off hand. Just because you can't do something that the vast majority of the league can't do doesn't mean you are weak at it. It just means you are average at it. There are actually very few players in this league that can finish ambidexterously. And again, I'm not the one that said he had glaring weaknesses that precluded him from being an elite player. That was you. So his glaring weaknesses that you have listed are his shooting(that everyone knows and acknowledges is bad) and his struggles with finishing with his off hand(which is extremely common amongst NBA players).

The team is 5th in offensive efficiency and were in the top 2 or 3 last year.

They were the 10th last season. I firmly believe this team would be the best offensive team in the NBA if the opponents didn't have the luxury of leaving Rondo unguarded in half-court sets.

Gotta say you got me there. I agree. If Rondo was a better shooter they probably would be a more efficient offensive team. But then again, I've admitted as such and I wasn't the one that claimed Rondo was a huge detriment to this team offensively, a team that by all measurements is one of the best and most efficient in the league.

You point out one very specific team with a very specific type of player playing a very specific type of defense that you claim makes Rondo a huge offensive detriment to this team.

Uh? What specific team and specific player?

Look, I'll try to put this very simple:
- if your team has a player that the other team leaves unguarded when he's off-the-ball, that constitutes a big negative factor in your offense.

I have no idea how can anyone disagree with the previous sentence. If it was said about some other player in the league, playing for another team, everybody would wholeheartedly agree with it.

No you are wrong.

It is not a huge negative it is just something that is a weakness that needs to be game planned around. American footbal, basketball and international football are probably the three biggest sports that having and executing a gameplan are most important in. Good coaches plan around the weaknesses that present themselves and try to exploit the weaknesses that the other team possesses.

Rondo's lack of being able to hit an outside shot consistently is a weakness that the very specific team I was talking about(the Lkaers) tries to exploit by switching one of the best defenders in the game onto Rondo and then playing off Rondo. Other teams have also attempted it. But most can't because they don't have the matchups elsewhere to exploit that particular Celtic weakness without making themselves even more weak elsewhere.

Rondo's weakness is hidden well in most games by his ability to use his other gifts and most team's inabilities to be able to exploit his weakness to it's fullest.

I understand you sustain some radical views on this subject, believing that this team wouldn't have more than 13 wins if Rondo wasn't playing, but you have to accept people can appreciate Rondo without sharing your extreme opinions.

And ending your post with this is exactly what Toine is talking about. The tone and overexaggeration make your entire argument seem .....nevermind. Just do me a favor and point to the quote that has me saying that the Celtics would only win 13 games if Rondo wasn't playing.....

.....


.....


.....


.....


I'm still waiting. Oh that's right. I never made such a claim or even came close to saying anything of the like. My "radical" view is that Rondo is someday going to be a star. No less than Doc Rivers, Danny Ainge, Tommy Heinsohn, and many others are in agreement with my "radical" view. And why? Because they know this kid and know his attitude, work ethic, drive, and competitive spirit and expect him to strengthen his weaknesses and become a star. He is still extremely young and has a chance to have two world championship rings starting for a champion at PG at the ripe old age of 23.

Now if that is radical, then I guess you are right, I'm a radical. But in a lot of ways, I'm in good company.