Are we really better w/o Rondo or will his return vault us back to eliteness?

[snively]

OK, so there was an argument that Pierce played well last year with Rondo so that proves Rondo is great (paraphrasing).  But Pierce has played great without Rondo for 8 or 9 games so how is it that Rondo is the reason for this (he played pretty well for about 10 years before Rondo came alone also)?  PP has been efficient and balanced with Bradley as the PG, how can that be?

There is also statistical justification for our plus minus with and without Rondo but that ignores the last 9 games without Rondo.  The first team with Rondo does well (as pointed out).  The second team with Bradley, not so well.  The first team with Bradley does just as well (better in the recent small sample) as they do with Rondo, after a few games of getting into the rhythm.  So I don't get what this proves either.

I understand the argument that we are better with Rondo (even though that hasn't been the case this year).  In the long run, Rondo should make us better.  But my point is that he could make us "more" better if he simply played a less ball dominant game.  He should be having this giant "ah-ha" and realizing that the team is playing very well with Bradley even though he is not trying to do all of the dribbling.  Imagine how well the team would be if it was me playing like that.

As you watch the team play this well with Bradley as their point gaurd, how can you want to go back to playing with Rondo dribbling around until he gets 15 assists and then have the offense struggle to score in the 4th quarter?  To me that is simply fair constructive criticism of a very good but flawed player who may be a little stubborn.

The only thing that's a little stubborn is your insistence that Rondo dribbles the air out of our offense and that the clouds have lifted as soon as he exited the line-up.  That's just not true.  He's not a ball-hog; he doesn't monopolize play-making.  And the offense hasn't been a ball-movement/efficiency clinic since he went out.  Pierce has dominated the ball as much as Rondo ever has and the results have been great.

The defense is back and the offense is getting by because Pierce has been able to shoulder the extra scoring load and Rondo's playmaking burden while maintaining extraordinary efficiency.  Rondo did the same thing for Pierce to start the year, it's just the defense wasn't there to back him up.

[guava_wrench]

OK, so there was an argument that Pierce played well last year with Rondo so that proves Rondo is great (paraphrasing).  But Pierce has played great without Rondo for 8 or 9 games so how is it that Rondo is the reason for this (he played pretty well for about 10 years before Rondo came alone also)?  PP has been efficient and balanced with Bradley as the PG, how can that be?

There is also statistical justification for our plus minus with and without Rondo but that ignores the last 9 games without Rondo.  The first team with Rondo does well (as pointed out).  The second team with Bradley, not so well.  The first team with Bradley does just as well (better in the recent small sample) as they do with Rondo, after a few games of getting into the rhythm.  So I don't get what this proves either.

I understand the argument that we are better with Rondo (even though that hasn't been the case this year).  In the long run, Rondo should make us better.  But my point is that he could make us "more" better if he simply played a less ball dominant game.  He should be having this giant "ah-ha" and realizing that the team is playing very well with Bradley even though he is not trying to do all of the dribbling.  Imagine how well the team would be if it was me playing like that.

As you watch the team play this well with Bradley as their point gaurd, how can you want to go back to playing with Rondo dribbling around until he gets 15 assists and then have the offense struggle to score in the 4th quarter?  To me that is simply fair constructive criticism of a very good but flawed player who may be a little stubborn.

The only thing that's a little stubborn is your insistence that Rondo dribbles the air out of our offense and that the clouds have lifted as soon as he exited the line-up.  That's just not true.  He's not a ball-hog; he doesn't monopolize play-making.  And the offense hasn't been a ball-movement/efficiency clinic since he went out.  Pierce has dominated the ball as much as Rondo ever has and the results have been great.

The defense is back and the offense is getting by because Pierce has been able to shoulder the extra scoring load and Rondo's playmaking burden while maintaining extraordinary efficiency.  Rondo did the same thing for Pierce to start the year, it's just the defense wasn't there to back him up.

My perception is similar - he doesn't actually dribble that much. Look at how much Pierce dribbles with Rondo out. Rondo often holds the ball waiting for Ray to run around. Rondo is no Cassell.

[j804]

OK, so there was an argument that Pierce played well last year with Rondo so that proves Rondo is great (paraphrasing).  But Pierce has played great without Rondo for 8 or 9 games so how is it that Rondo is the reason for this (he played pretty well for about 10 years before Rondo came alone also)?  PP has been efficient and balanced with Bradley as the PG, how can that be?

There is also statistical justification for our plus minus with and without Rondo but that ignores the last 9 games without Rondo.  The first team with Rondo does well (as pointed out).  The second team with Bradley, not so well.  The first team with Bradley does just as well (better in the recent small sample) as they do with Rondo, after a few games of getting into the rhythm.  So I don't get what this proves either.

I understand the argument that we are better with Rondo (even though that hasn't been the case this year).  In the long run, Rondo should make us better.  But my point is that he could make us "more" better if he simply played a less ball dominant game.  He should be having this giant "ah-ha" and realizing that the team is playing very well with Bradley even though he is not trying to do all of the dribbling.  Imagine how well the team would be if it was me playing like that.

As you watch the team play this well with Bradley as their point gaurd, how can you want to go back to playing with Rondo dribbling around until he gets 15 assists and then have the offense struggle to score in the 4th quarter?  To me that is simply fair constructive criticism of a very good but flawed player who may be a little stubborn.

The only thing that's a little stubborn is your insistence that Rondo dribbles the air out of our offense and that the clouds have lifted as soon as he exited the line-up.  That's just not true.  He's not a ball-hog; he doesn't monopolize play-making.  And the offense hasn't been a ball-movement/efficiency clinic since he went out.  Pierce has dominated the ball as much as Rondo ever has and the results have been great.

The defense is back and the offense is getting by because Pierce has been able to shoulder the extra scoring load and Rondo's playmaking burden while maintaining extraordinary efficiency.  Rondo did the same thing for Pierce to start the year, it's just the defense wasn't there to back him up.

TP this is the answer to the OP and should pretty much sum up the thread

[BudweiserCeltic]

OK, so there was an argument that Pierce played well last year with Rondo so that proves Rondo is great (paraphrasing).  But Pierce has played great without Rondo for 8 or 9 games so how is it that Rondo is the reason for this (he played pretty well for about 10 years before Rondo came alone also)?  PP has been efficient and balanced with Bradley as the PG, how can that be?

There is also statistical justification for our plus minus with and without Rondo but that ignores the last 9 games without Rondo.  The first team with Rondo does well (as pointed out).  The second team with Bradley, not so well.  The first team with Bradley does just as well (better in the recent small sample) as they do with Rondo, after a few games of getting into the rhythm.  So I don't get what this proves either.

I understand the argument that we are better with Rondo (even though that hasn't been the case this year).  In the long run, Rondo should make us better.  But my point is that he could make us "more" better if he simply played a less ball dominant game.  He should be having this giant "ah-ha" and realizing that the team is playing very well with Bradley even though he is not trying to do all of the dribbling.  Imagine how well the team would be if it was me playing like that.

As you watch the team play this well with Bradley as their point gaurd, how can you want to go back to playing with Rondo dribbling around until he gets 15 assists and then have the offense struggle to score in the 4th quarter?  To me that is simply fair constructive criticism of a very good but flawed player who may be a little stubborn.

The only thing that's a little stubborn is your insistence that Rondo dribbles the air out of our offense and that the clouds have lifted as soon as he exited the line-up.  That's just not true.  He's not a ball-hog; he doesn't monopolize play-making.  And the offense hasn't been a ball-movement/efficiency clinic since he went out.  Pierce has dominated the ball as much as Rondo ever has and the results have been great.

The defense is back and the offense is getting by because Pierce has been able to shoulder the extra scoring load and Rondo's playmaking burden while maintaining extraordinary efficiency.  Rondo did the same thing for Pierce to start the year, it's just the defense wasn't there to back him up.

TP this is the answer to the OP and should pretty much sum up the thread

The problem with Rondo is not the dribbling, but the dribbling without doing anything, often starting the offense with 13 or less seconds in the shot clock. It is something that needs to be corrected, he needs to make quicker decisions with the ball. The main culprit in this is first wasting too much time waiting to see if Ray Allen gets open just to start the offense, or when he's looking to get KG in the post. Also, he has been often too much of a "general" if that's even possible, he wastes valuable shot clock time envisioning a play in his head, then directing multiple players on how he wants them situated... given how old our team is, and how slow they are to get into position, that's simply a waste of valuable time.

The difference with Pierce, is that when he has the ball in his hands he's usually looking to make something happen, so while we can argue about being a ball hog or not, the difference in these scenario is that the offense is actually doing something.

What Rondo needs to do is check the options quicker, and if nothing is there, put the pressure on the defense while attempting to penetrate.

In all, for me it has nothing to do with Rondo dominating the ball or dribbling the ball, it's time wasted where our offense is doing nothing but staring at each other.

[RajonRondo9Dime]

Admittedly I didn't read through all 6 pages of this thread, but here is my 2 cents.

The argument "teams just sag off of Rondo when he's in" is completely irrelevant here. Do we realize who's starting in place of Rondo...? Avery Bradley. Not exactly a feared outside shooter. So obviously we are better with Rondo. Avery Bradley, while has played pretty well, isn't near the caliber of Rajon Rondo, so it makes no sense to pretend we are better without him.

[Celtics4ever]

Welcome to Celtics Blog, Rajonrondo9Dime, I agree with your assessment.  Here is a  tommy point.

[guava_wrench]

The problem with Rondo is not the dribbling, but the dribbling without doing anything, often starting the offense with 13 or less seconds in the shot clock. It is something that needs to be corrected, he needs to make quicker decisions with the ball. The main culprit in this is first wasting too much time waiting to see if Ray Allen gets open just to start the offense, or when he's looking to get KG in the post. Also, he has been often too much of a "general" if that's even possible, he wastes valuable shot clock time envisioning a play in his head, then directing multiple players on how he wants them situated... given how old our team is, and how slow they are to get into position, that's simply a waste of valuable time.

The difference with Pierce, is that when he has the ball in his hands he's usually looking to make something happen, so while we can argue about being a ball hog or not, the difference in these scenario is that the offense is actually doing something.

What Rondo needs to do is check the options quicker, and if nothing is there, put the pressure on the defense while attempting to penetrate.

In all, for me it has nothing to do with Rondo dominating the ball or dribbling the ball, it's time wasted where our offense is doing nothing but staring at each other.

I disagree. Pierce dribbles even more without going anywhere. Rondo does a better job of dribbling to spots that cause a teammate to get open. There was a lot of dribbling and doing nothing at the ends of the Cleveland games and Rondo wasn't even playing.

Just insisting that something is true doesn't mean you (or I) are correct. I think you are wrong, but our memories are hardly a good guide, especially without knowing what the Celtics are running on each play.

The truth is, there is nothing wrong with dribbling if you are watching a play develop. These guys aren't going to give up the dribble for the sake of not dribbling while plays are run.

Rondo penetrates as much as Pierce does, so of course there are times when both try to put moves on their man.

[xmuscularghandix]

Rondo has to go. I'm convinced that Pass first point guards aren't the best way to go.

Love RR but i think the franchise would be better with someone else as the center of the rebuild.

[BudweiserCeltic]

The problem with Rondo is not the dribbling, but the dribbling without doing anything, often starting the offense with 13 or less seconds in the shot clock. It is something that needs to be corrected, he needs to make quicker decisions with the ball. The main culprit in this is first wasting too much time waiting to see if Ray Allen gets open just to start the offense, or when he's looking to get KG in the post. Also, he has been often too much of a "general" if that's even possible, he wastes valuable shot clock time envisioning a play in his head, then directing multiple players on how he wants them situated... given how old our team is, and how slow they are to get into position, that's simply a waste of valuable time.

The difference with Pierce, is that when he has the ball in his hands he's usually looking to make something happen, so while we can argue about being a ball hog or not, the difference in these scenario is that the offense is actually doing something.

What Rondo needs to do is check the options quicker, and if nothing is there, put the pressure on the defense while attempting to penetrate.

In all, for me it has nothing to do with Rondo dominating the ball or dribbling the ball, it's time wasted where our offense is doing nothing but staring at each other.

I disagree. Pierce dribbles even more without going anywhere. Rondo does a better job of dribbling to spots that cause a teammate to get open. There was a lot of dribbling and doing nothing at the ends of the Cleveland games and Rondo wasn't even playing.

Just insisting that something is true doesn't mean you (or I) are correct. I think you are wrong, but our memories are hardly a good guide, especially without knowing what the Celtics are running on each play.

The truth is, there is nothing wrong with dribbling if you are watching a play develop. These guys aren't going to give up the dribble for the sake of not dribbling while plays are run.

Rondo penetrates as much as Pierce does, so of course there are times when both try to put moves on their man.

4th quarter situations is a different beast all-together. I'm talking about the full game, not a chunk of it. The 4th quarter situation is a team wide problem.

Does Pierce end up doing nothing at times? Sure, but he forces players to guard him, it's a different sort of dynamic. So you're telling me you don't often see Rondo doing nothing at the top of the key throughout the game just dribbling the ball? This is not a illusion, heck you often hear Tommy throughout the game shouting to do something.

Once again, I have nothing against dribbling, in fact, I have nothing against waiting to see how the play develops, the problem is that quite often he waits for the play to develop for too long. It's a symptom of tunnel vision. OK, this time I'm going to give it to Ray, let's wait the whole shot clock to see if he gets open, that sort of situation. He has to be aware when a play is slow developing, well not the play but that first option.

[Celtics4ever]

As opposed to hiding him  in the corner like they do with Bradley?

[BudweiserCeltic]

As opposed to hiding him  in the corner like they do with Bradley?

I think we're better served with Rondo making a pass early in the shot clock often, just to get our players and ball moving then come back and get the ball. It's usually when our offense is at our best.

[kelticwarrior]

Better with Rondo is perhaps the wrong choice of word, expecting 'more' from Rondo and feeling a little more comfortable with him is perhaps more apt.   Rondo will continue to dribble the ball more when he senses that he really should be shooting the ball but is not comfortable with his shot.  He will not become the 'complete' threat that he could be unless his shooting becomes consistantly good, and that would create more open looks for the remaining 4.  Then we would be back as an elite team.

[CelticsFanNC]

Rondo has to go. I'm convinced that Pass first point guards aren't the best way to go.

Love RR but i think the franchise would be better with someone else as the center of the rebuild.

 Rondo for all of his weakness discussed here constantly has an NBA title.

  Now tell me who was the last shoot first, ball dominating PG that won an NBA title.

  Pass first PG's throughout NBA history have had more success then shoot first PG's.

[Greenbean]

Rondo has to go. I'm convinced that Pass first point guards aren't the best way to go.

Love RR but i think the franchise would be better with someone else as the center of the rebuild.

 Rondo for all of his weakness discussed here constantly has an NBA title.

  Now tell me who was the last shoot first, ball dominating PG that won an NBA title.

  Pass first PG's throughout NBA history have had more success then shoot first PG's.

Yup...Isiah was the last guy to win a title...21 years ago...and he was a great passer too.

[Greenbean]

Here's what has been baffling to me...

With Pierce in the game, the Celtics consistently get out and run more. He looks for outlets every time and is looking to push.

I can't for the life of me figure out why Rondo was crawling up the floor before he got hurt.

I suspect that right now, Rondo is studying, taking everything in, getting healthy, and will come back and apply his abilities to tailor to something the Celtics have hit on.

Maybe Rondo can play off the ball more like Bradley does and Pierce can lead some breaks.