Define "building around". Why do they keep saying we can't build around Rondo?

[ms.ball]

Because if building a team around Jason Kidd or Gary Payton didn't yield a championship, it definitely won't happen with a team whose best player is Rondo.




You mention having "a couple great scorers," but a truly 'great scorer' is likely to be better than Rondo, and thus the centerpiece of the team.

As others have said, Rondo is very good as a #2 or #3.  Not a player you build around.

Kidd lead his team to two finals appearances when he was not that great of a scorer, but he was a great playmaker defense minded pg who could rebound alah Rondo

[BballTim]

Also if magic Johnson played now he'd be a powerforward (at the athleticism he showed in the NBA). Man I wish Miami would just stop the bibby experiment and the chalmers debacle and just play bron at point full time. Or, I would wish that if bron was likable

If Magic played now he would be Lebron. 

  Maybe if he lost most of his passing ability and some of his BBIQ.

[BballTim]

Because if building a team around Jason Kidd or Gary Payton didn't yield a championship, it definitely won't happen with a team whose best player is Rondo.

  A team built around Payton won 64 games and lost to the Bulls in 6. Teams built around Kidd went to the finals twice. There's no guarantee you'll get better than that building around many of the so-called #1s being discussed.

You mention having "a couple great scorers," but a truly 'great scorer' is likely to be better than Rondo, and thus the centerpiece of the team.

As others have said, Rondo is very good as a #2 or #3.  Not a player you build around.

  Last year PP was 21st in the league in scoring, Ray was 36th and KG 50th. The year before we went to the finals and they were all worse. In that 2010 postseason they were 21st, 32nd and 37th in *playoff* scoring and when Rondo was playing well we were cruising through the playoffs. Why would we need a couple of great scorers or a truly great scorer to put on the court with Rondo?

[BballTim]

I agree.. in fact Rondo even allows opposition teams to go 5 on 4 when defending the Celtics and just stop him from driving to the hoop. I am yet to hear championship teams' #1 guys that got left open and were dared to take jumpers.

  Are people really under the impression that teams lived in fear of Magic Johnson's long range jump shots? Or is it the case that he doesn't meet that magical criteria of a #1 guy?

dude, he was Magic Johnson.

  Yes, he was. And he was the best pg I ever saw. But being Magic Johnson didn't make him a great outside shooter any more than it made him a great defensive pg.

[soap07]

  A team built around Payton won 64 games and lost to the Bulls in 6. Teams built around Kidd went to the finals twice. There's no guarantee you'll get better than that building around many of the so-called #1s being discussed.

Meh, Kidd getting through those HORRENDOUS Eastern Conferences was never all that impressive to me, especially with how easily the Nets were dispatched in the Finals.

[PosImpos]

I agree.. in fact Rondo even allows opposition teams to go 5 on 4 when defending the Celtics and just stop him from driving to the hoop. I am yet to hear championship teams' #1 guys that got left open and were dared to take jumpers.

  Are people really under the impression that teams lived in fear of Magic Johnson's long range jump shots? Or is it the case that he doesn't meet that magical criteria of a #1 guy?

dude, he was Magic Johnson.

  Yes, he was. And he was the best pg I ever saw. But being Magic Johnson didn't make him a great outside shooter any more than it made him a great defensive pg.

the point is, there's really not much strength to an argument based on "well, magic johnson was successful doing X despite Y, so ____ can be too."

magic johnson was such a unique player, who was so incredibly good at so many things, it didn't matter if he had some significant weaknesses (e.g. outside shooting).

[PosImpos]

Because if building a team around Jason Kidd or Gary Payton didn't yield a championship, it definitely won't happen with a team whose best player is Rondo.

  A team built around Payton won 64 games and lost to the Bulls in 6. Teams built around Kidd went to the finals twice. There's no guarantee you'll get better than that building around many of the so-called #1s being discussed.

You mention having "a couple great scorers," but a truly 'great scorer' is likely to be better than Rondo, and thus the centerpiece of the team.

As others have said, Rondo is very good as a #2 or #3.  Not a player you build around.

  Last year PP was 21st in the league in scoring, Ray was 36th and KG 50th. The year before we went to the finals and they were all worse. In that 2010 postseason they were 21st, 32nd and 37th in *playoff* scoring and when Rondo was playing well we were cruising through the playoffs. Why would we need a couple of great scorers or a truly great scorer to put on the court with Rondo?

because the team you're citing would have won the title easily if not for a below average offense -- especially in crunch time.  the 2010 celtics do more to help prove my point than refute it.

[bfrombleacher]

What about Dwight Howard then? I'm pretty sure he is a guy you can "build around" with since Orlando would be garbage without him. In the 4th quarter, he'll be just as non-existent as ESPN's Chosen one.

Why would Howard be non-existent? 

Hack-a-Howard

Most of the posts are on how Rondo can't hit a shot in crunch time when it's needed most, like in the fourth quarter.

[BballTim]

Because if building a team around Jason Kidd or Gary Payton didn't yield a championship, it definitely won't happen with a team whose best player is Rondo.

  A team built around Payton won 64 games and lost to the Bulls in 6. Teams built around Kidd went to the finals twice. There's no guarantee you'll get better than that building around many of the so-called #1s being discussed.

You mention having "a couple great scorers," but a truly 'great scorer' is likely to be better than Rondo, and thus the centerpiece of the team.

As others have said, Rondo is very good as a #2 or #3.  Not a player you build around.

  Last year PP was 21st in the league in scoring, Ray was 36th and KG 50th. The year before we went to the finals and they were all worse. In that 2010 postseason they were 21st, 32nd and 37th in *playoff* scoring and when Rondo was playing well we were cruising through the playoffs. Why would we need a couple of great scorers or a truly great scorer to put on the court with Rondo?

because the team you're citing would have won the title easily if not for a below average offense -- especially in crunch time.  the 2010 celtics do more to help prove my point than refute it.

  We lost in game 7 by 4 points without our starting center and the series might not have gone that far if Artest hadn't kneed Ray in the thigh in game 3. If you think that team proves they can't win without significantly more scoring punch then you're mistaken.

[BballTim]

I agree.. in fact Rondo even allows opposition teams to go 5 on 4 when defending the Celtics and just stop him from driving to the hoop. I am yet to hear championship teams' #1 guys that got left open and were dared to take jumpers.

  Are people really under the impression that teams lived in fear of Magic Johnson's long range jump shots? Or is it the case that he doesn't meet that magical criteria of a #1 guy?

dude, he was Magic Johnson.

  Yes, he was. And he was the best pg I ever saw. But being Magic Johnson didn't make him a great outside shooter any more than it made him a great defensive pg.

the point is, there's really not much strength to an argument based on "well, magic johnson was successful doing X despite Y, so ____ can be too."

  I didn't make that argument. I was pointing out that not every star player is a good outside shot.

magic johnson was such a unique player, who was so incredibly good at so many things, it didn't matter if he had some significant weaknesses (e.g. outside shooting).

  I think that if Rondo started hitting his fts a little better and possibly looking for his offense a little more you could make a similar argument about him. Clearly this isn't to say he'd be at Magic's level, but clearly none of the #1s listed are either.

[chambers]

Josh Smith= scrub who gets more credit than he's worth because of his leaping ability.
He can't shoot, his defense is questionable and he has inconsistent patches that are terrifying.

Never want to see this guy in a C's uniform.
Could you imagine the scoring droughts when this clown and Rondo are both shooting poorly? We already go through really tough dry patches on offense.

[bfrombleacher]

Josh Smith= scrub who gets more credit than he's worth because of his leaping ability.
He can't shoot, his defense is questionable and he has inconsistent patches that are terrifying.

Never want to see this guy in a C's uniform.
Could you imagine the scoring droughts when this clown and Rondo are both shooting poorly? We already go through really tough dry patches on offense.

Our team relies on jump shooting too much. I think that's why we have offensive droughts. A legit inside threat to connect Rondo's passes would make a huge difference. Just look at Shaq. He is a mere shadow of his former self but the Celtics became the best team with inside scoring.

As I said before, ATL runs iso a lot and Josh Smith doesn't have the handles to do that, so he ends up putting up garbage shots. I stand by that in Boston, Josh Smith will be a huge threat as a SF since he won't be handling the ball much and Rivers draws up the best plays with Rondo executing them to perfection. Josh Smith will be near the basket getting fouls and building momentum to stop the offensive dry spells. Even a pick and roll with Josh Smith and Rondo would be almost impossible to stop.

[Moranis]

Also if magic Johnson played now he'd be a powerforward (at the athleticism he showed in the NBA). Man I wish Miami would just stop the bibby experiment and the chalmers debacle and just play bron at point full time. Or, I would wish that if bron was likable

If Magic played now he would be Lebron. 

  Maybe if he lost most of his passing ability and some of his BBIQ.

If Magic played today he wouldn't have grown up as a PG, he would have grown up as a Point SF, like Lebron.  He would have been a better scorer and a worse passer then he was.

And for the record, Lebron is a much better defender, much better scorer, and far more athletic then Magic.  And Lebron's BBIQ is world class.  Lebron seems to lack some of the killer instinct that Magic had, but they would be very similar players if Magic had come up in today's NBA.

[Moranis]

Because if building a team around Jason Kidd or Gary Payton didn't yield a championship, it definitely won't happen with a team whose best player is Rondo.




You mention having "a couple great scorers," but a truly 'great scorer' is likely to be better than Rondo, and thus the centerpiece of the team.

As others have said, Rondo is very good as a #2 or #3.  Not a player you build around.

Kidd lead his team to two finals appearances when he was not that great of a scorer, but he was a great playmaker defense minded pg who could rebound alah Rondo

Kidd was essentially the leading scorer on those two teams.  And certainly was in the playoffs.  He was a solid foul shooter and had a credible mid-range game, so you couldn't just back off of him or foul him. 

Rondo shoots foul shots like a center, which is embarrassing and he is getting worse, which should never happen.  His mechanic's are terrible and he seemingly has made no effort to correct them.  He just isn't the player Kidd was and he never will be. 

[2short]

Building around= taking a player who makes everyone on the team a better player, this player has great leadership skills and is simply a winner

Building around a player doesn't necessarily mean an nba champion (john stockton, all time great).