Does this year's playoffs show that Rondo is (at least) on par with Rose?

[snively]

  And, honestly, what's more important? How well Rondo shoots and how closely players guard him or how much of an overall impact he has on the offense? I'd say the latter but that seems to put my in a clear minority.

If Rondo did such a good job running the offense compared to other point guards in the league, why was Boston's offense below average this year? Yeah, he did a great job creating open shots for teammates but let's not kid ourselves that his own lack of scoring ability hurt the offense.

  Honestly? Everyone that pays much attention to the team can tell you that the reason we're a below average offensive team is due to weak offensive rebounding. We're one of the best teams aside from that. We're near the league leaders in eFG% and TS%.

I pay a lot of attention to the Celtics, and I'd say their offensive issues go a lot deeper than just a lack of offensive rebounding.

Offensive rebounding, a shortage of free throw opportunities, too few shots for the Big 3 and too many shots for Baby (and, to a lesser extent, Rondo): these were the problems with the Celtics offense.

The offensive rebounding is partly Celtic strategy and partly rebounding incompetence (Baby, Erden, Krstic and JO were very poor on the boards last year).  Adding a good rebounder to the frontcourt rotation would go a long way to improving our showing in that regard. 

With Rondo and the Big 3, I don't think we're going to be a foul drawing team, but there is still room for improvement in terms of shooting efficiency (despite our excellent marks in that category).  Replacing Baby's shots with Jeff Green's and Rondo's return to 2009 & 2010 shooting efficiency, would greatly improve our offensive efficiency, provided that the Big 3 don't fall off precipitously.

[JT11]

  Comparing these two players is like comparing apples and oranges.  Yes they play the same position but that is where the similarities end.  One is a PG who look for his own shot first and foremost, passing when he cannot find his own shot.  The other is the definition of the pass first PG who looks to score only when he cannot find someone else with a better shot. 

One is on a team that needs him to score in order for the team to win.  Until the Miami series, he was able to do that against everyone even though the entire defense was designed to stop him.  He could easily look to score less if on a different team.  I don't think it is something to criticize Rose for.

Rondo doesn''t "look to score" because he can't shoot.  He doesn't look to score even when ungaurded 15' from the basket.  Rondo would look to score more if he could shoot (and Doc would want him to).  Rondo is a very good passer and has a great nose for the ball.  He needs to learn to shoot though if he wants to be in the MVP discussion along with Rose in the coming years.

  Rose could score less, but that wouldn't make him a better passer or better at running an offense. Rondo's been putting up 16-17 a game in the playoffs the last 3 years in spite of not looking for his offense. Clearly he's capable of scoring more than that if he made it a priority. I agree that he'd need to score a lot more to be in the MVP discussion (although he was at least on the fringes of it this year in spite of his late season slump). But I don't think his goal should be to be in the MVP discussions, but to help us win games.

BballTim, I agree with most of the points you've made so far in the thread. But an honest question - do you really think that Rondo doesn't need to work on his jumpshot?

Sure, Rose didn't exactly shoot terrifically, but he was injured as well. While I wouldn't say I'm as negative about Rondo as many others on the forum, I'd still put him under Rose, if not by much, if only because Rose has got less to work with, is constantly double/tripled team, and still does manage to score. I'm not taking anything away from Rondo, who is a great point guard, but I do think he needs to shoot better in order to be considered truly elite. That being said, I'm not sure if any other point guard would fit better on our team (which doesn't mean they aren't a better point guard, period). 

[BballTim]

  Comparing these two players is like comparing apples and oranges.  Yes they play the same position but that is where the similarities end.  One is a PG who look for his own shot first and foremost, passing when he cannot find his own shot.  The other is the definition of the pass first PG who looks to score only when he cannot find someone else with a better shot. 

One is on a team that needs him to score in order for the team to win.  Until the Miami series, he was able to do that against everyone even though the entire defense was designed to stop him.  He could easily look to score less if on a different team.  I don't think it is something to criticize Rose for.

Rondo doesn''t "look to score" because he can't shoot.  He doesn't look to score even when ungaurded 15' from the basket.  Rondo would look to score more if he could shoot (and Doc would want him to).  Rondo is a very good passer and has a great nose for the ball.  He needs to learn to shoot though if he wants to be in the MVP discussion along with Rose in the coming years.

  Rose could score less, but that wouldn't make him a better passer or better at running an offense. Rondo's been putting up 16-17 a game in the playoffs the last 3 years in spite of not looking for his offense. Clearly he's capable of scoring more than that if he made it a priority. I agree that he'd need to score a lot more to be in the MVP discussion (although he was at least on the fringes of it this year in spite of his late season slump). But I don't think his goal should be to be in the MVP discussions, but to help us win games.

BballTim, I agree with most of the points you've made so far in the thread. But an honest question - do you really think that Rondo doesn't need to work on his jumpshot?

  First I'd like to see him improve his foul shooting. But of course he needs to work on his jump shot. I'm not saying that Rondo's jump shooting woes doesn't hurt the team. I'm not saying that having defenders stray from him doesn't in and of itself make it harder for us to score. I'm saying that he does enough things exceptionally well and that they contribute more to our offense than his flaws detract from our offense. His passing ability and the way he runs the offense gets the team plenty of open looks despite the lack of concern the defenses have for his outside shot.

  The team would clearly be better if Rondo were a better outside shot. Everyone probably agrees with that. But some people feel that any player that's a good outside shot/free throw shooter with halfway decent pg skills would be an improvement. I don't agree with this. If Rondo improves his shooting you keep all of his other skills. If you replace him it's a tradeoff. If you lose some of Rondo's vision, passing ability and how he runs the offense then the big three could be less effective even with the opposing pg staying closer to home. If you get a scoring pg that's a less efficient scorer than the big three and he takes shots from them it's not necessarily a win. And that's ignoring the defense and rebounding you'll lose.

[XxSMSxX]

  If Iverson were that good or even close to being a player who's game was conducive to winning he'd still be playing in the NBA.

  I find it almost comical that people still defend this guy.  He was a coach killer and a team cancer.  He continually put his needs and desires above the teams.  During his time in Philly they brought in All-Star level talent or close to All-Star level talent to play alongside of him and those players left Philly with their careers in shambles(Coleman, Robinson, VanHorn).

  He was one of a long line of post Jordan era players who thought they could "be like Mike" and dominate the basketball and win NBA titles but the fact is the only guy in NBA history who could win multiple championships while dominating the basketball was Jordan.  None of them were as good as Jordan and the main reason Jordan could be as successful as he was on a team level while dominating the ball was because his own era was watered down by a huge amount of expansion to the league during that time.

First of all Iverson's game was dependent upon his quickness and speed and his ability to get into the paint because he was 5'11. As he lost a step so did a large part of his game even though he STILL averaged 26/7 playing as a second option to Carmelo. In fact Iverson shot his best percentages at 32 as a second option. Once Iverson had someone else who could take the pressure off of him he shot well, dished the ball, played as a good as defense as you could being that short, and did everything a point was supposed to do.

Derrick Coleman is one of the laziest pieces of **** i've ever watched play in the NBA, he could have been the greatest PF of all time if he actually gave a [dang] more than half the time. And how was he a coach killer when Larry Brown absolutely loved AI and how hard the guy played night in and night out. Broken fingers, sprained knees/shoulders/etc. Allen Iverson played with more heart than anybody not named Jordan or Bird. And if i remember correctly team cancers dont carry their teams to the finals. Zach Randolph a year ago was a cancer, Kobe Bryant in 04 was a cancer, Iverson was the furthest thing from a cancer all he wanted to do was win.

Keith van horn played one year with Iverson and even then you aint winning jack with Keith Van Horn as your second option. And he played pretty much the same [dang] way when he came to Philly and the same way when he left. Except he shot much better with Iverson because of how much defensive attention the man drew which allowed Keith more open space to operate.

If Iverson played most of his prime today he'd be the best scorer in the game today and he'd be much more efficient. You wanna give Iverson touch fouls, even more superstar calls, and on top of that absolutely no handchecking? He'd run rampant all over this league. Iverson was a faster, quicker version of Derrick Rose with a better mid range jumper a quicker first step and a better or just as good a finisher at the rim.

Calling Allen Iverson a cancer is borderline retarded period.

[XxSMSxX]

  Don't know what these playoffs said about Rondo because he was hurt and didn't play up to the level he has in past post seasons.

  What these playoffs said about Rose is he is yet another NBA player who has been over hyped by the media because he can score a lot of points but in reality doesn't do anything other then score to help his team win games.  I hate to compare him to Iverson because I do think he is a better p[layer then Iverson but that is exactly who he looked like.  If you need to take 30 shots to score 30 points you're just not scoring efficiently therefore you are probably hurting your team as much as you are helping it.

  The media, specifically ESPN has been over rating/over hyping scorers for twenty years.

Fans, GMs, all media outlets -- they ALL over-hype scorers.

Hype or not, Rose carried a flawed team to the best record and, on a bad ankle, to wins in two rounds of the playoffs.

I think there is a fair amount of substance to back up the hype.

Rose didn't carry anything. A volume scorer shooting LESS than 40% will NEVER help a team i don't care how many points he scores. He only shot well in one playoff series and that was against a backup PG who never saw serious minutes on the Hawks. The Bulls defense (especially their paint protection) and rebounding is the reason why there such a [dang] good team. Rose is a great player but he forced the issue WAY to many times in these playoffs and the Bulls D was not able to accommodate Rose missing so many shots. This is a player averaging nearly 25 shots a game in the playoffs and missing mroe than 60% of them. I don't care how good your D is you can't win when one player is taking that and missing that many shots

[JT11]

  First I'd like to see him improve his foul shooting. But of course he needs to work on his jump shot. I'm not saying that Rondo's jump shooting woes doesn't hurt the team. I'm not saying that having defenders stray from him doesn't in and of itself make it harder for us to score. I'm saying that he does enough things exceptionally well and that they contribute more to our offense than his flaws detract from our offense. His passing ability and the way he runs the offense gets the team plenty of open looks despite the lack of concern the defenses have for his outside shot.

  The team would clearly be better if Rondo were a better outside shot. Everyone probably agrees with that. But some people feel that any player that's a good outside shot/free throw shooter with halfway decent pg skills would be an improvement. I don't agree with this. If Rondo improves his shooting you keep all of his other skills. If you replace him it's a tradeoff. If you lose some of Rondo's vision, passing ability and how he runs the offense then the big three could be less effective even with the opposing pg staying closer to home. If you get a scoring pg that's a less efficient scorer than the big three and he takes shots from them it's not necessarily a win. And that's ignoring the defense and rebounding you'll lose.

Thanks for the clarification. In that case I agree with you on pretty much all points. TP.

[CelticG1]

I think that Rondo is GREAT for this team. I think he would struggle more than other great point guards on other teams simply because his teammates would be worse and I don't think Rondo can be a consistent scoring threat at the moment.

He could be the best point guard for our team the past couple years but considering KG and Ray could very well be gone in a year or maybe even less I don't know if he can continue to be the best point guard for this team. Also add in the fact that our older guys will be getting less minutes and we would probably be seeing more bench players (i.e. lower caliber players) and I don't know if another point guard could be better or not for us.

Plus Rondo has a leg up on statisical/ efficency/ setting up the offense/ less turnovers type stats in my opinion since his first full season as a starter was with this core and has been for the past 4 seasons. Other PG's have gone through major transformations and have improved on a lot of things in their games and have still maintained impressive levels of team success.

Just because Rondo was great for us for these past seasons doesn't mean that he is necessarily the best PG to move toward the future with.

[Steve Weinman]

  Don't know what these playoffs said about Rondo because he was hurt and didn't play up to the level he has in past post seasons.

  What these playoffs said about Rose is he is yet another NBA player who has been over hyped by the media because he can score a lot of points but in reality doesn't do anything other then score to help his team win games.  I hate to compare him to Iverson because I do think he is a better p[layer then Iverson but that is exactly who he looked like.  If you need to take 30 shots to score 30 points you're just not scoring efficiently therefore you are probably hurting your team as much as you are helping it.

  The media, specifically ESPN has been over rating/over hyping scorers for twenty years.

Fans, GMs, all media outlets -- they ALL over-hype scorers.

Hype or not, Rose carried a flawed team to the best record and, on a bad ankle, to wins in two rounds of the playoffs.

I think there is a fair amount of substance to back up the hype.

Rose didn't carry anything. A volume scorer shooting LESS than 40% will NEVER help a team i don't care how many points he scores. He only shot well in one playoff series and that was against a backup PG who never saw serious minutes on the Hawks. The Bulls defense (especially their paint protection) and rebounding is the reason why there such a [dang] good team. Rose is a great player but he forced the issue WAY to many times in these playoffs and the Bulls D was not able to accommodate Rose missing so many shots. This is a player averaging nearly 25 shots a game in the playoffs and missing mroe than 60% of them. I don't care how good your D is you can't win when one player is taking that and missing that many shots

You're killing Rose for inefficient volume scoring in the playoffs, yet you've spent most of your posts in this thread hailing Iverson's career body of work?

Color me confused.

-sw

[XxSMSxX]

  Don't know what these playoffs said about Rondo because he was hurt and didn't play up to the level he has in past post seasons.

  What these playoffs said about Rose is he is yet another NBA player who has been over hyped by the media because he can score a lot of points but in reality doesn't do anything other then score to help his team win games.  I hate to compare him to Iverson because I do think he is a better p[layer then Iverson but that is exactly who he looked like.  If you need to take 30 shots to score 30 points you're just not scoring efficiently therefore you are probably hurting your team as much as you are helping it.

  The media, specifically ESPN has been over rating/over hyping scorers for twenty years.

Fans, GMs, all media outlets -- they ALL over-hype scorers.

Hype or not, Rose carried a flawed team to the best record and, on a bad ankle, to wins in two rounds of the playoffs.

I think there is a fair amount of substance to back up the hype.

Rose didn't carry anything. A volume scorer shooting LESS than 40% will NEVER help a team i don't care how many points he scores. He only shot well in one playoff series and that was against a backup PG who never saw serious minutes on the Hawks. The Bulls defense (especially their paint protection) and rebounding is the reason why there such a [dang] good team. Rose is a great player but he forced the issue WAY to many times in these playoffs and the Bulls D was not able to accommodate Rose missing so many shots. This is a player averaging nearly 25 shots a game in the playoffs and missing mroe than 60% of them. I don't care how good your D is you can't win when one player is taking that and missing that many shots

You're killing Rose for inefficient volume scoring in the playoffs, yet you've spent most of your posts in this thread hailing Iverson's career body of work?

Color me confused.

-sw

Your confused because you apparently didn't read what i wrote. Allen Iverson HAD to score for his team because no one else could create their own offense for them. If he didn't who was going to take those shots? Mutumbo? Mckey? not Ratliff cause he wasn't even there that long. Rose CHOOSES to force the shot/try and take over. The reason the Bulls got destroyed by Miami was because of Rose's inability to make very difficult shots he shouldn't have been taking in the first place/him not trying to find his teammates more open shots. I cant count how many times i see Rose dribble dribble drive dribble dribble then kick it off to Deng or Korver or whoever with like 3 or 4 seconds left on the shot clock and make them force up a difficult jumper. Derrick Rose has VERY capable offensive players around him, something Iverson never had till he was out of his prime and starting to lose a step. That's the difference between the two. Iverson HAD to score/force the issue for his team, Rose CHOOSES to do that

[CelticsFanNC]

  Iverson's body of work speaks for itself.  He pretty much got black balled from the NBA.  He quit on his final two teams because he wasn't satisfied with the role his coach gave him.  Philadelphia and Denver were almost immediately better when he left town.  Detroit was instantly worse when they traded the over rated Iverson and traded away the underrated Billups.  Joe Dumars ruined one of the great track records as a GM the moment he traded for Iverson. 

[greenpride32]

Rose didn't perform well in the playoffs, there is no arguing that fact.  But that doesn't mean he goes down a notch to Rondo's level.  If you want to argue Rondo was hurt, so was Rose during the playoffs.

Rose is a scorer; his team needs him to do that if they're going to have success.  He's put the team on his back more often than not this year and led the Bulls to best record in the league. 

Seems to me like the pro-Rondo comments are selectively picking out Rose's bad performances, while at the same time selectively picking out Rondo's best. 

Scoring isn't everything in this league, but I disagree that it's overvalued or overhyped.  Look at a guy like Durant (an talke about a guy who was invisible for most of the playoffs).  Most consider hime a top 5 talent in the league.  If he doesn't score he doesn't offer a whole lot.  When he does score he can put the team on has back just like Rose.  The bottom line is these types of scorers can win a game for you on any given night.  But it's a team game and nobody can do it alone.  Put some decent talent/supporting cast around them and they easily become contenders.

[XxSMSxX]

  Iverson's body of work speaks for itself.  He pretty much got black balled from the NBA.  He quit on his final two teams because he wasn't satisfied with the role his coach gave him.  Philadelphia and Denver were almost immediately better when he left town.  Detroit was instantly worse when they traded the over rated Iverson and traded away the underrated Billups.  Joe Dumars ruined one of the great track records as a GM the moment he traded for Iverson. 

So now your basing Iverson's body of work on the last 2 years of his career? Grasping for straws aren't we?

[CelticsFanNC]

  Iverson's body of work speaks for itself.  He pretty much got black balled from the NBA.  He quit on his final two teams because he wasn't satisfied with the role his coach gave him.  Philadelphia and Denver were almost immediately better when he left town.  Detroit was instantly worse when they traded the over rated Iverson and traded away the underrated Billups.  Joe Dumars ruined one of the great track records as a GM the moment he traded for Iverson. 

So now your basing Iverson's body of work on the last 2 years of his career? Grasping for straws aren't we?

  Anyone still defending Iverson is grasping at straws. The guy dug his own grave and then got buried in it. 


  How do you explain away his teams in every instance being better once he left town?  His game was never conducive to winning which is why all of the teams he left did better after they dumped him.   He's probably the most over rated players of the past twenty years.  He scored a whole lot of points at the expense of his teammates and their ability to win basketball games.  You talk about how well he did in Denver but Denver was miles better after he left and was replaced by Billups....a guy who never received the hype Iverson got but a guy who was and is a winner in every sense of the word...something Iverson is not and never was.

[shiggins]

  If Iverson were that good or even close to being a player who's game was conducive to winning he'd still be playing in the NBA.

  I find it almost comical that people still defend this guy.  He was a coach killer and a team cancer.  He continually put his needs and desires above the teams.  During his time in Philly they brought in All-Star level talent or close to All-Star level talent to play alongside of him and those players left Philly with their careers in shambles(Coleman, Robinson, VanHorn).

  He was one of a long line of post Jordan era players who thought they could "be like Mike" and dominate the basketball and win NBA titles but the fact is the only guy in NBA history who could win multiple championships while dominating the basketball was Jordan.  None of them were as good as Jordan and the main reason Jordan could be as successful as he was on a team level while dominating the ball was because his own era was watered down by a huge amount of expansion to the league during that time.

First of all Iverson's game was dependent upon his quickness and speed and his ability to get into the paint because he was 5'11. As he lost a step so did a large part of his game even though he STILL averaged 26/7 playing as a second option to Carmelo. In fact Iverson shot his best percentages at 32 as a second option. Once Iverson had someone else who could take the pressure off of him he shot well, dished the ball, played as a good as defense as you could being that short, and did everything a point was supposed to do.

Derrick Coleman is one of the laziest pieces of **** i've ever watched play in the NBA, he could have been the greatest PF of all time if he actually gave a [dang] more than half the time. And how was he a coach killer when Larry Brown absolutely loved AI and how hard the guy played night in and night out. Broken fingers, sprained knees/shoulders/etc. Allen Iverson played with more heart than anybody not named Jordan or Bird. And if i remember correctly team cancers dont carry their teams to the finals. Zach Randolph a year ago was a cancer, Kobe Bryant in 04 was a cancer, Iverson was the furthest thing from a cancer all he wanted to do was win.

Keith van horn played one year with Iverson and even then you aint winning jack with Keith Van Horn as your second option. And he played pretty much the same [dang] way when he came to Philly and the same way when he left. Except he shot much better with Iverson because of how much defensive attention the man drew which allowed Keith more open space to operate.

If Iverson played most of his prime today he'd be the best scorer in the game today and he'd be much more efficient. You wanna give Iverson touch fouls, even more superstar calls, and on top of that absolutely no handchecking? He'd run rampant all over this league. Iverson was a faster, quicker version of Derrick Rose with a better mid range jumper a quicker first step and a better or just as good a finisher at the rim.

Calling Allen Iverson a cancer is borderline retarded period.

Right on the money.  TP

[Steve Weinman]

  Don't know what these playoffs said about Rondo because he was hurt and didn't play up to the level he has in past post seasons.

  What these playoffs said about Rose is he is yet another NBA player who has been over hyped by the media because he can score a lot of points but in reality doesn't do anything other then score to help his team win games.  I hate to compare him to Iverson because I do think he is a better p[layer then Iverson but that is exactly who he looked like.  If you need to take 30 shots to score 30 points you're just not scoring efficiently therefore you are probably hurting your team as much as you are helping it.

  The media, specifically ESPN has been over rating/over hyping scorers for twenty years.

Fans, GMs, all media outlets -- they ALL over-hype scorers.

Hype or not, Rose carried a flawed team to the best record and, on a bad ankle, to wins in two rounds of the playoffs.

I think there is a fair amount of substance to back up the hype.

Rose didn't carry anything. A volume scorer shooting LESS than 40% will NEVER help a team i don't care how many points he scores. He only shot well in one playoff series and that was against a backup PG who never saw serious minutes on the Hawks. The Bulls defense (especially their paint protection) and rebounding is the reason why there such a [dang] good team. Rose is a great player but he forced the issue WAY to many times in these playoffs and the Bulls D was not able to accommodate Rose missing so many shots. This is a player averaging nearly 25 shots a game in the playoffs and missing mroe than 60% of them. I don't care how good your D is you can't win when one player is taking that and missing that many shots

You're killing Rose for inefficient volume scoring in the playoffs, yet you've spent most of your posts in this thread hailing Iverson's career body of work?

Color me confused.

-sw

Your confused because you apparently didn't read what i wrote. Allen Iverson HAD to score for his team because no one else could create their own offense for them. If he didn't who was going to take those shots? Mutumbo? Mckey? not Ratliff cause he wasn't even there that long. Rose CHOOSES to force the shot/try and take over. The reason the Bulls got destroyed by Miami was because of Rose's inability to make very difficult shots he shouldn't have been taking in the first place/him not trying to find his teammates more open shots. I cant count how many times i see Rose dribble dribble drive dribble dribble then kick it off to Deng or Korver or whoever with like 3 or 4 seconds left on the shot clock and make them force up a difficult jumper. Derrick Rose has VERY capable offensive players around him, something Iverson never had till he was out of his prime and starting to lose a step. That's the difference between the two. Iverson HAD to score/force the issue for his team, Rose CHOOSES to do that

Fine, Iverson had to do it his way in order to help his teams attain offensive success.

21, 21, 23, 25, 13, 23, 11, 26, 24, 15, 8*, 11, 21.

Those are Iverson's team's offensive efficiency ranks in his 13 full seasons in the league.  The asterisk next to the eight marks the year he was traded to Denver in the midst of the season (the Detroit trade occurred after just three games).

Eight finishes outside the top 20 in 13 years.

We know from the significant sample size of his entire career that he was not an efficient scorer - his 51.8 percent true shooting mark is markedly below league average.  We know that his career usage of 31.8 percent ranks third in NBA history, so it is clear he exerted a significant degree of influence over his teams' offenses.  And we know that taking all those shots he supposedly had to take led his teams all the way to some rather putrid offensive outputs.

What we don't know for sure is how another more efficient, less selfish star might have done with similar supporting casts.

But it seems clear Iverson didn't set an especially high bar.

-sw