The funniest thing is that Tony Parkers career is very similar to Rondo’s. And claiming that he’s overrated because he’s playing with a good team...
Tony look around, everything your saying has been said about you.
Actually, I agree with this, though I don't know if you are looking at it the way I am. Both point guards wouldn't be able to make a team a championship level squad as "the man" like a Deron Williams or Steve Nash would, but both players are stars that happen to have great players around them, which imo makes them. Now Rondo is by far a better passer and rebounder than Parker, but Parker is a better shooter and is/was a better scorer. I also will give him that Williams and Paul are more of a challenge to guard. LA isn't putting Kobe on him to shut Rajon down but to put Kobe on the weakest outside offensive player so he doesn't expand as much energy on that side of the court.
However I could care what Parker has to say. I feel the Celtics are the better team and have proven it thus far with who they've beat in the playoffs.
Steve Nash and Deron Williams have never made anyone a championship team as "the man" either.
Maybe I'm off, but I see Steve Nash (today) to be pretty spectacular. I recognize he has mileage, but if we had Nash over Rondo I think we'd be unstoppable offensively.
And we're going to start rebuilding pretty soon anyhow.
Any team can lose on a given night. In many regards it's a game of statistics. Roll poorly too many times and you're out, regardless of how good you are. (0-13??)
I think it's fair to argue that Rondo is better than Tony Parker. I do not think so about Deron Williams or Steve Nash (barring future projection).
Anyway, off work, good luck tonight!
If the Suns made it to the finals most people would have seen pg as a big matchup in out favor.
Ultimately, I think this is a tough argument, since both of these players are perfect fits for their teams. I think Rondo is nearly perfect for what the C's need. He brings them the defense, rebounding, and passing that they really need from that position, and because they have so many other shooters, his lack of shooting is not that important.
And Nash is the same way. They win by outscoring their opponent, and Nash is absolutely perfect at running the show on that team. His combination of ballhandling, shooting, and passing drives that team to be much better than they would be without him.
I think if you put Nash on the Celtics, they would be worse, and if you put Rondo on the Suns, they would be worse (he cannot single-handedly make them a defensive team, and his offense is not good enough without a better outside shot to outscore anyone).
To me, Rondo and Nash are both on the same level of flawed star. Meaning they are just below that top tier, because they have a flaw that can be exploited, particularly if they do not have players around them to hide that weakness.
The biggest difference between Rondo and Nash's careers is that the Celtics have been able to hide Rondo's weakness by surrounding him with shooters and skilled offensive players, so even if he is not able to attack the rim and break down the defense, they can still survive offensively, and allow him to be effective on defense and fast breaks. The Suns on the other hand have not hid Nash's weakness. Instead, they built a team weakness around it, and it has been their achilles heal. If they surrounded Nash with guys who can play defense the way the C's play offense around Rondo, they would be great as well. But since they haven't, he is stuck in (relative) mediocrity.
And lets be clear, this is not to bash Rondo. There are maybe 3-4 players in the league who are good enough, and have a complete enough game to not fall in this category (or lower), but I think this shows how well this team was put together.
Topic: "Sometimes the best team doesn't win" (Read 20417 times)