Okay, I'll take the blame for not clarify what I mean by "carrying," although I think it's common sense that when people use that term they don't mean in every single facet of the game, just as they don't mean it literally.
When I say that a player is capable of "carrying" a team, I mean that they have one or two elite skills which impact the game in such a way that their team has the potential to be one of the best in the league provided that they have a competent supporting cast (note: "supporting cast" doesn't mean a bunch of All-Stars).
Dwight Howard, for example, impacts the game with his elite rebounding and defense in such a way that if you surround him with a competent supporting cast (like he had in '09), his team will have the potential to be one of the best in the league (if not the best).
The same goes for Durant, Dirk, Rose, Wade, and Kobe and their scoring, LeBron with his scoring, defense, and passing, and CP3 with his scoring, passing, and defense (though BBallTim is correct in pointing out that CP3 struggled to carry a team night after night when he was on the Hornets, but I think we could argue over whether or not that was a "competent" supporting cast).
Rondo has two elite skills, from what I can tell: his passing and his defense. He does other things well, but not better than the vast majority of players at his position (or the league in general). My assertion is that Rondo cannot elevate a team to contender status with his passing and defense alone if you simply surround him with a competent supporting cast. You'd need to pair him with an elite scorer, or a dominant inside presence. In other words, you'd need to pair him with a player who has a greater overall impact on the game, or multiple players with a similar impact on the game.
Now, you're absolutely correct in saying that there aren't many players in the league who fit that description. But it is my contention that the only way to build a likely contender is to have such a player on your team, and I think that the last 30+ years of NBA Championship teams support that assertion. Therefore, it is my belief that until you have such a player, nobody on your roster should be untouchable.
Hence, I think it is silly when people act incredulous whenever anybody suggests that a smart rebuilding plan might not involve Rondo long-term. It's been my impression, based upon what such people have said in the past, that they hold a belief that if Danny can simply acquire a cast of decent young players with varying, complementary talents, with Rondo as the clear-cut marquee player, the team could actually compete for a title. I don't think we've seen anything from Rondo -- except for in a few stretches of a few games at a time -- to suggest that he could live up to that sort of expectation.
Now, all of that said, I think if you already have a bunch of weapons and supporting players on your roster, and you need somebody to make the offense cohesive and efficient, there's nobody in the league who can do that better while also adding a bunch of other things (such as defense, great rebounding for a guard, hustle plays, competitiveness, etc).
For example, I think Rondo is the sort of player that a team like the Hawks desperately need. With Rondo helming their offense, the Hawks could perhaps be a contender. But they already have multiple All-Star talents on the roster.
You mentioned Rondo not being able to carry the team in all facets as his failing which is why I asked who could because as we agree on those players who can are very few and far between. I don’t find that failing as very relevant to Rondo’s future on this team because he is not what is holding us back from getting one of those type of players. Besides how many of these marquee players have led their teams to championships in the past decade by themselves? Or even to the finals? None. If we want to contend we will need to build a great team. Multiple players playing at above average to allstar levels. No one man team wins championships no matter who that one man is.
I don’t see scoring is the only elite skill that defines ability to lead teams. Winning games takes more than scoring and I value every one of those other skills that contribute to winning that Rondo has. Things like dictating pace, rebounding, getting teammates involved, disrupting the other team’s offense. In that respect I see him as someone who is valuable to all types of teams regardless of how poor his shooting his. Anyway I prefer to focus on the things Rondo does well rather than obsess about what he doesn’t. The skill he’s below average at is one that is relatively easy to find. I think it’s easier to find shooters than to find a player to replace Rondo’s skills.
Your theory that Rondo would not succeed with a decent supporting cast is just that a theory. It is not backed by any evidence. It’s only your opinion and it is not any more valid than the range of theories floating around on how to move forward. The point of rebuilding to me is assemble a good team. I think it’s silly to dismiss anyone’s viewpoints on how to go about it.
You know what I believe is most important to contending based on championship history? A really good big man. Elite scorers of whom there are dime a dozen in this league do not win championships, defense and bigs do. All those players you mention, Lebron is the only non-big I could see winning a championship without one. No matter how much scoring the rest of them do they need that help in the paint because that’s what wins games in the playoffs. So I personally believe thinking of ways to acquire those type of bigs is a more useful exercise than obsessing over Rondo.
Topic: Early Season Lesson: Rondo Can't Carry a Team (Read 23189 times)