You Don't Need A Star PG To Win A Championship

[rondohondo]

As long as you have a serviceable PG you can win the championship. Just take a look at the past 20 years ......


LAL 2009 =Derek Fisher
Mia 2006 = Jason Williams
LAL 00-02 = Derek Fisher
CHI 96-98 = Ron Harper
HOU 93-95 = Kenny Smith, Sam Cassell
CHI  90-93 = BJ Armstrong, John Paxon


This make me feel more comfortable trading Rondo, especially if we can get a package like Gay and Conley for Rondo.

[Rondo2287]

well derek fisher was alot better in 00-02 than 09, but the point is valid

[Jon]

I just posted about this in another thread.  And it's BS.  You could say that about any position.  You could say that you don't need a star shooting guard and cite the Bird-led Celtics in the '80s as an example (how do you like that Danny Ainge?).  You could say you don't need a dominant big man and cite the Bulls as an example of that.  You could say you don't need a dominant SF and cite the last three Detroit champions, the Olajuwon Rocket teams, and all three incarnations of the Spurs' title teams. 

You could also cite the fact that all three of Bird's championship teams (two of which Ainge played on) had either Hall of Fame or should-be-Hall-of-Fame PGs in Tiny Archibald and Dennis Johnson.  Let's also not forget Tony Parker's impact on the Spurs their past two titles or the impact of strong point guards on Detroit's championship ways in the form of Isaiah Thomas and Chauncey Billups.  Let's also not forget most of Celtic history as even before Bird they were piloted by greats like Cousy, K.C. Jones, and JoJo White. 

So, yes, you don't need a start PG to win a title, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have one.  In many cases, they can be integral to winning it all.   

[celticinorlando]

exactly what danny said...and honestly rondo wasn't a great PG when the celtics won it all...he was still raw and pretty rough and the only question mark the C's had...i would take good servicable depth at PG over a dynamic PG

[rondohondo]

I just posted about this in another thread.  And it's BS.  You could say that about any position.  You could say that you don't need a star shooting guard and cite the Bird-led Celtics in the '80s as an example (how do you like that Danny Ainge?).  You could say you don't need a dominant big man and cite the Bulls as an example of that.  You could say you don't need a dominant SF and cite the last three Detroit champions, the Olajuwon Rocket teams, and all three incarnations of the Spurs' title teams. 

You could also cite the fact that all three of Bird's championship teams (two of which Ainge played on) had either Hall of Fame or should-be-Hall-of-Fame PGs in Tiny Archibald and Dennis Johnson.  Let's also not forget Tony Parker's impact on the Spurs their past two titles or the impact of strong point guards on Detroit's championship ways in the form of Isaiah Thomas and Chauncey Billups.  Let's also not forget most of Celtic history as even before Bird they were piloted by greats like Cousy, K.C. Jones, and JoJo White. 

So, yes, you don't need a start PG to win a title, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have one.  In many cases, they can be integral to winning it all.   

I hear you, I just don't think there is that much of a drop off between Rondo and Conley. Plus adding Gay and keeping PP's legs fresh for the playoffs is a big plus in this potential deal. I think if you sign Kidd for a year or 2 and add Conley and Gay to the bench , you have just as good of a chance , if not better to win another championship.

[Jon]

I just posted about this in another thread.  And it's BS.  You could say that about any position.  You could say that you don't need a star shooting guard and cite the Bird-led Celtics in the '80s as an example (how do you like that Danny Ainge?).  You could say you don't need a dominant big man and cite the Bulls as an example of that.  You could say you don't need a dominant SF and cite the last three Detroit champions, the Olajuwon Rocket teams, and all three incarnations of the Spurs' title teams. 

You could also cite the fact that all three of Bird's championship teams (two of which Ainge played on) had either Hall of Fame or should-be-Hall-of-Fame PGs in Tiny Archibald and Dennis Johnson.  Let's also not forget Tony Parker's impact on the Spurs their past two titles or the impact of strong point guards on Detroit's championship ways in the form of Isaiah Thomas and Chauncey Billups.  Let's also not forget most of Celtic history as even before Bird they were piloted by greats like Cousy, K.C. Jones, and JoJo White. 

So, yes, you don't need a start PG to win a title, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have one.  In many cases, they can be integral to winning it all.   

I hear you, I just don't think there is that much of a drop off between Rondo and Conley. Plus adding Gay and keeping PP's legs fresh for the playoffs is a big plus in this potential deal. I think if you sign Kidd for a year or 2 and add Conley and Gay to the bench , you have just as good of a chance , if not better to win another championship.

Well, if you're going to offer the MLE to Kidd, why not just offer the MLE (or part of it) to Grant Hill and keep Pierce's legs fresh for the playoffs without having to sacrifice talent and team chemistry with the loss of Rondo? 

[rondohondo]

I just posted about this in another thread.  And it's BS.  You could say that about any position.  You could say that you don't need a star shooting guard and cite the Bird-led Celtics in the '80s as an example (how do you like that Danny Ainge?).  You could say you don't need a dominant big man and cite the Bulls as an example of that.  You could say you don't need a dominant SF and cite the last three Detroit champions, the Olajuwon Rocket teams, and all three incarnations of the Spurs' title teams. 

You could also cite the fact that all three of Bird's championship teams (two of which Ainge played on) had either Hall of Fame or should-be-Hall-of-Fame PGs in Tiny Archibald and Dennis Johnson.  Let's also not forget Tony Parker's impact on the Spurs their past two titles or the impact of strong point guards on Detroit's championship ways in the form of Isaiah Thomas and Chauncey Billups.  Let's also not forget most of Celtic history as even before Bird they were piloted by greats like Cousy, K.C. Jones, and JoJo White. 

So, yes, you don't need a start PG to win a title, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have one.  In many cases, they can be integral to winning it all.   

I hear you, I just don't think there is that much of a drop off between Rondo and Conley. Plus adding Gay and keeping PP's legs fresh for the playoffs is a big plus in this potential deal. I think if you sign Kidd for a year or 2 and add Conley and Gay to the bench , you have just as good of a chance , if not better to win another championship.

Well, if you're going to offer the MLE to Kidd, why not just offer the MLE (or part of it) to Grant Hill and keep Pierce's legs fresh for the playoffs without having to sacrifice talent and team chemistry with the loss of Rondo? 

Well it sounds like Rondo might be ruining the chemistry himself from all the recent reports. Grant Hill would be a good addition , but Gay is a up and coming all star SF for years to come. If you can add a future all star and a PG that is pretty close in talent to Rondo , I don't see why you wouldn't do it....

[Jon]

I just posted about this in another thread.  And it's BS.  You could say that about any position.  You could say that you don't need a star shooting guard and cite the Bird-led Celtics in the '80s as an example (how do you like that Danny Ainge?).  You could say you don't need a dominant big man and cite the Bulls as an example of that.  You could say you don't need a dominant SF and cite the last three Detroit champions, the Olajuwon Rocket teams, and all three incarnations of the Spurs' title teams. 

You could also cite the fact that all three of Bird's championship teams (two of which Ainge played on) had either Hall of Fame or should-be-Hall-of-Fame PGs in Tiny Archibald and Dennis Johnson.  Let's also not forget Tony Parker's impact on the Spurs their past two titles or the impact of strong point guards on Detroit's championship ways in the form of Isaiah Thomas and Chauncey Billups.  Let's also not forget most of Celtic history as even before Bird they were piloted by greats like Cousy, K.C. Jones, and JoJo White. 

So, yes, you don't need a start PG to win a title, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have one.  In many cases, they can be integral to winning it all.   

I hear you, I just don't think there is that much of a drop off between Rondo and Conley. Plus adding Gay and keeping PP's legs fresh for the playoffs is a big plus in this potential deal. I think if you sign Kidd for a year or 2 and add Conley and Gay to the bench , you have just as good of a chance , if not better to win another championship.

Well, if you're going to offer the MLE to Kidd, why not just offer the MLE (or part of it) to Grant Hill and keep Pierce's legs fresh for the playoffs without having to sacrifice talent and team chemistry with the loss of Rondo? 

Well it sounds like Rondo might be ruining the chemistry himself from all the recent reports. Grant Hill would be a good addition , but Gay is a up and coming all star SF for years to come. If you can add a future all star and a PG that is pretty close in talent , I dont see why you wouldn't do it....

I think it's extremely premature to say that Rondo is ruining chemistry on this team.  For all the chemistry that he "ruined," the team still won 62 games, while missing KG for about 1/3 of the season.  To put it in perspective, Larry Bird's Celtics only beat that total three seasons during their fabled run.  So I wouldn't be jumping to conclusions that Rondo is somehow damaging this team.  They didn't win the title this year because KG was injured and they probably would've won it had he been healthy, Rondo's attitude or not. 

Plus, I do think that some of the "attitude" problems Rondo might have will go away when KG is actually back on the court.  While he was courtside, I think his presence physically playing will straighten Rondo out. 

As for Gay, I think it's premature to call him a future All Star.  Has he put up nice stats?  Sure, but so did the likes of Dino Radja, Ron Mercer, and Antoine Walker on bad Celtics teams.  If he does become an All Star, he's not going to be a perennial one.  Thus, it's not like missing out on the opportunity to land him is going to be something we're going to kick ourselves for years to come about.  However, missing out on the opportunity to win #18 will be. 

[winsomme]

As long as you have a serviceable PG you can win the championship. Just take a look at the past 20 years ......


LAL 2009 =Derek Fisher
Mia 2006 = Jason Williams
LAL 00-02 = Derek Fisher
CHI 96-98 = Ron Harper
HOU 93-95 = Kenny Smith, Sam Cassell
CHI  90-93 = BJ Armstrong, John Paxon


This make me feel more comfortable trading Rondo, especially if we can get a package like Gay and Conley for Rondo.

the Bulls, Lakers and Miami all had play-making SGs and used the PG as an extra shooter.....we do not have a play-making SG.

It a vacuum, sure you don't need a pure point, but this Cs team stagnates when they don't have a play maker on the court for long periods of time.

[2short]

I just posted about this in another thread.  And it's BS.  You could say that about any position.  You could say that you don't need a star shooting guard and cite the Bird-led Celtics in the '80s as an example (how do you like that Danny Ainge?).  You could say you don't need a dominant big man and cite the Bulls as an example of that.  You could say you don't need a dominant SF and cite the last three Detroit champions, the Olajuwon Rocket teams, and all three incarnations of the Spurs' title teams. 

You could also cite the fact that all three of Bird's championship teams (two of which Ainge played on) had either Hall of Fame or should-be-Hall-of-Fame PGs in Tiny Archibald and Dennis Johnson.  Let's also not forget Tony Parker's impact on the Spurs their past two titles or the impact of strong point guards on Detroit's championship ways in the form of Isaiah Thomas and Chauncey Billups.  Let's also not forget most of Celtic history as even before Bird they were piloted by greats like Cousy, K.C. Jones, and JoJo White. 

So, yes, you don't need a start PG to win a title, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have one.  In many cases, they can be integral to winning it all.   

you need a solid starting team with 2 stars at least a good coach and competitive bench
star player(s) can be guards detroit isiah and dumars
forwards bird mchale
etc etc
Rondo is imo 2 years away from being the celtics dominate player, 1 year from all star team and i wouldn't trade him for but 2 pg in the league in straight trades
deron williams & chris paul (who has what it takes to be best EVER)

[winsomme]

let's also remember a couple of things about those Rockets Title teams in 94 and 95.

First, Kenny Smith was better than serviceable.....

but more than that (and as much as I love Dream) those two Titles most likely are not won if Jordan hadn't taken his baseball hiatus...

[KCattheStripe]

let's also remember a couple of things about those Rockets Title teams in 94 and 95.

First, Kenny Smith was better than serviceable.....

but more than that (and as much as I love Dream) those two Titles most likely are not won if Jordan hadn't taken his baseball hiatus...

I think they could have won the second one still, having traded for Drexler.

[Jon]

let's also remember a couple of things about those Rockets Title teams in 94 and 95.

First, Kenny Smith was better than serviceable.....

but more than that (and as much as I love Dream) those two Titles most likely are not won if Jordan hadn't taken his baseball hiatus...

Good point; however, Jordan was very lucky to not face many dominant big men in his title runs.  All he really ever had to face was an undersized Alonzo Mourning on an inferior Miami team, the choke-artist Patrick Ewing, and a very young Shaq.  Out of the West, he never had to face dominant centers like Hakeem and the Admiral (none of the teams the Bulls ever faced out of the West had a dominant center).  Given the Bulls weak interior defense (and while you can praise Rodman, he was way too small to guard dominant centers), I often wonder how the Bulls would have faired against Hakeem, or if they had to play 5 years later against the twin Towers of Robinson and Duncan or against Shaq when he made it to LA.  

Part of me thinks that Jordan got very lucky in the matchups he had and the era that he played in.  

[winsomme]

I just posted about this in another thread.  And it's BS.  You could say that about any position.  You could say that you don't need a star shooting guard and cite the Bird-led Celtics in the '80s as an example (how do you like that Danny Ainge?).  You could say you don't need a dominant big man and cite the Bulls as an example of that.  You could say you don't need a dominant SF and cite the last three Detroit champions, the Olajuwon Rocket teams, and all three incarnations of the Spurs' title teams. 

You could also cite the fact that all three of Bird's championship teams (two of which Ainge played on) had either Hall of Fame or should-be-Hall-of-Fame PGs in Tiny Archibald and Dennis Johnson.  Let's also not forget Tony Parker's impact on the Spurs their past two titles or the impact of strong point guards on Detroit's championship ways in the form of Isaiah Thomas and Chauncey Billups.  Let's also not forget most of Celtic history as even before Bird they were piloted by greats like Cousy, K.C. Jones, and JoJo White. 

So, yes, you don't need a start PG to win a title, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have one.  In many cases, they can be integral to winning it all.   

I basically agree with you here.

Asking this question in the abstract adds very little to the Rondo conversation.

The only question that matters for us is does THIS TEAM (this Celtics team right now) need a talented pure PG to win it all?

the answer to that question IMO is 1000% Yes.

If we go into next season with a PG who doesn't have at the very least above average PG skills, we are going to see a huge drop in the efficiency of the offense.

do we really want to go back to the days of Pierce being our main ballhandler?

[Jon]

I just posted about this in another thread.  And it's BS.  You could say that about any position.  You could say that you don't need a star shooting guard and cite the Bird-led Celtics in the '80s as an example (how do you like that Danny Ainge?).  You could say you don't need a dominant big man and cite the Bulls as an example of that.  You could say you don't need a dominant SF and cite the last three Detroit champions, the Olajuwon Rocket teams, and all three incarnations of the Spurs' title teams. 

You could also cite the fact that all three of Bird's championship teams (two of which Ainge played on) had either Hall of Fame or should-be-Hall-of-Fame PGs in Tiny Archibald and Dennis Johnson.  Let's also not forget Tony Parker's impact on the Spurs their past two titles or the impact of strong point guards on Detroit's championship ways in the form of Isaiah Thomas and Chauncey Billups.  Let's also not forget most of Celtic history as even before Bird they were piloted by greats like Cousy, K.C. Jones, and JoJo White. 

So, yes, you don't need a start PG to win a title, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have one.  In many cases, they can be integral to winning it all.   

I basically agree with you here.

Asking this question in the abstract adds very little to the Rondo conversation.

The only question that matters for us is does THIS TEAM (this Celtics team right now) need a talented pure PG to win it all?

the answer to that question IMO is 1000% Yes.

If we go into next season with a PG who doesn't have at the very least above average PG skills, we are going to see a huge drop in the efficiency of the offense.

do we really want to go back to the days of Pierce being our main ballhandler?

Very true.  Let's not forget the way the C's starters look with House on the court with them vs. how they look with Rondo out there.  It's like night and day.  And while House can work for small stretches, it's easy to see how stagnant things get out there after a matter of minutes.