Would you rather have Rondo or Sullinger back right now?

[kgainez]

Agreed. We're now 8 pages into this thread, and I'm still waiting for someone on the other side of this argument to support even one claim with a useful fact, or pay attention to any of the facts that have been presented to them.

I'm still waiting for this too.

you mean like how we're 17-11 without Rondo and were 20-23 with him?

And the records with and without Sully are? Considering he went down one game after Rondo, I am sure they are pretty similar right? It's not like the team couldn't make up for his contributions. They continued to win without him, right?

Still waiting on a useful fact from someone on the other side.

hold on i just realized what you said
we found someone to make up for sully's contributions...sure...not up to that standard but close.
but we also found someone to not only make up for Rondo's contributions, but I can argue that those someones did it BETTER...why?

17-11 vs 20-23

[zimbo]

Agreed. We're now 8 pages into this thread, and I'm still waiting for someone on the other side of this argument to support even one claim with a useful fact, or pay attention to any of the facts that have been presented to them.

I'm still waiting for this too.

you mean like how we're 17-11 without Rondo and were 20-23 with him?

And the records with and without Sully are? Considering he went down one game after Rondo, I am sure they are pretty similar right? It's not like the team couldn't make up for his contributions. They continued to win without him, right?

Still waiting on a useful fact from someone on the other side.

hold on i just realized what you said
we found someone to make up for sully's contributions...sure...not up to that standard but close.
but we also found someone to not only make up for Rondo's contributions, but I can argue that those someones did it BETTER...why?

17-11 vs 20-23

Um, they both went out around the same time. The team continued to win w/o Sully. The team has a better record w/o Sully too. How are using this fact against Rondo, but not Sully?

[ejk3489]

Secondly, there are people referencing statistics but guess what...STATISTICS AREN'T THE ENTIRE GAME!! YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS!!

But at the end of the day it's about WINS AND LOSSES.

Aren't these two statements completely contradictory of each other? You claim that stats aren't everything, and yet your whole argument ultimately comes down to our record with/without Rondo. Are you dismissing all of the reasons (that others have already pointed out multiple times) about why the TEAM might have been slumping during the first few months of the season or was Green's comeback from surgery and Bradley's absence Rondo's fault too? 

In many of Rondo's dominate games this year...in his trip doubles....we didn't win. Why is that?

vs CHI 20/10/9 - W
vs ORL 15/16/9 - W
vs PHI 16/14/13 - L
vs DAL 16/15/9 - W
vs ATL 14/10/11 - W
vs CHA 17/12/10 - W
vs NYK 23/11/10 - L
vs ATL 16/11/10 - L (game where he tore his ACL))

We're 5-3 when Rondo dominates/has a triple double this season. Overall, the C's have won 23 games and have lost just 5 when he gets a triple dub. So my guess is to look at how the other players performed in those losses if you really want to know why we didn't win.

[CelticConcourse]

Secondly, there are people referencing statistics but guess what...STATISTICS AREN'T THE ENTIRE GAME!! YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS!!

But at the end of the day it's about WINS AND LOSSES.

Aren't these two statements completely contradictory of each other? You claim that stats aren't everything, and yet your whole argument ultimately comes down to our record with/without Rondo. Are you dismissing all of the reasons (that others have already pointed out multiple times) about why the TEAM might have been slumping during the first few months of the season or was Green's comeback from surgery and Bradley's absence Rondo's fault too? 

In many of Rondo's dominate games this year...in his trip doubles....we didn't win. Why is that?

vs CHI 20/10/9 - W
vs ORL 15/16/9 - W
vs PHI 16/14/13 - L
vs DAL 16/15/9 - W
vs ATL 14/10/11 - W
vs CHA 17/12/10 - W
vs NYK 23/11/10 - L
vs ATL 16/11/10 - L (game where he tore his ACL))

We're 5-3 when Rondo dominates/has a triple double this season. Overall, the C's have won 23 games and have lost just 5 when he gets a triple dub. So my guess is to look at how the other players performed in those losses if you really want to know why we didn't win.

vs OKC 6/16/8 - W
vs PHI 7/11/9 - W

[BballTim]

Agreed. We're now 8 pages into this thread, and I'm still waiting for someone on the other side of this argument to support even one claim with a useful fact, or pay attention to any of the facts that have been presented to them.

I'm still waiting for this too.

you mean like how we're 17-11 without Rondo and were 20-23 with him?

And the records with and without Sully are? Considering he went down one game after Rondo, I am sure they are pretty similar right? It's not like the team couldn't make up for his contributions. They continued to win without him, right?

Still waiting on a useful fact from someone on the other side.

hold on i just realized what you said
we found someone to make up for sully's contributions...sure...not up to that standard but close.
but we also found someone to not only make up for Rondo's contributions, but I can argue that those someones did it BETTER...why?

17-11 vs 20-23

  Just out of curiosity, did you notice anything in the first 2-3 months of the season that contributed to our 20-23 record besides Rondo's play?

[blink]

Embarrassing thread



Uhh rondo and it's not even close.

This.

[Roy H.]

Enough with all of the attacks and shots at the viewpoints of others.  Please review the rules here:

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=10.msg944643#msg944643

[BballTim]

Everyone who said sullinger should pretty much be banned for such absurdity 

Rondo lovers really need to get a grip. Just because people don't put rondo on this high pedestal that some of you think he should be on does NOT mean you have to be so nasty just because someone disagrees with you.

Some people on here didn't like the way this team played when rondo was controlling the offense. That is completely understandable.

Some people think him coming back could mess with chemistry, hard to argue how that might indeed be a possibility and even has a realistic chance of happening.

Its also hard to argue that this teams biggest problem right now is not having enough quality bigs who can rebound and keep people out the paint.

So, even tho you may disagree *And that's fine* acting like people that pick sullinger are morons is completely uncalled for and not even remotely true.

  Wanting to go into the playoffs with Sully instead of Rondo is similar to wanting to play with Green instead of Garnett or Bradley over Pierce. The Celts can go into a playoff series with Rondo and there's a decent chance he'll be the best or second best player in the series. Are you claiming that you can say the same about Sully, or that having such players aren't overly necessary to win in the postseason?

[CelticConcourse]

Enough with all of the attacks and shots at the viewpoints of others.  Please review the rules here:

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=10.msg944643#msg944643

Yeah. Stop calling other people's opinions "embarassing", "absurd", or "disgraceful" just because you disagree! It is CelticsBlog Forums!! Everyone has their right to their own opinion, no matter how "stupid"!

[kgainez]

Agreed. We're now 8 pages into this thread, and I'm still waiting for someone on the other side of this argument to support even one claim with a useful fact, or pay attention to any of the facts that have been presented to them.

I'm still waiting for this too.

you mean like how we're 17-11 without Rondo and were 20-23 with him?

And the records with and without Sully are? Considering he went down one game after Rondo, I am sure they are pretty similar right? It's not like the team couldn't make up for his contributions. They continued to win without him, right?

Still waiting on a useful fact from someone on the other side.

hold on i just realized what you said
we found someone to make up for sully's contributions...sure...not up to that standard but close.
but we also found someone to not only make up for Rondo's contributions, but I can argue that those someones did it BETTER...why?

17-11 vs 20-23

  Just out of curiosity, did you notice anything in the first 2-3 months of the season that contributed to our 20-23 record besides Rondo's play?

yea
i saw Rondo only passing to KG and PP.
I saw BB bricking lots of makeable shots.
I saw Rondo letting the defense set up.
I also saw him driving to the lane only to pass on a wide open layup.
I saw Doc using JET as the exact replacement to Ray Allen.
I saw LB get no minutes, even when after the first game, he scored like...12 straight to get us within 4 or sumn against the Heatles.
I saw lots of things. But mainly my disdain was with Rondo. He often looked off a cutting Jeff. Forced things with KG and PP. Made fancy passes to Bass who couldn't catch them. He and Wilcox were magic though.

So forgive if my thinking then contributes to my thinking now.

[kgainez]

Secondly, there are people referencing statistics but guess what...STATISTICS AREN'T THE ENTIRE GAME!! YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS!!

But at the end of the day it's about WINS AND LOSSES.

Aren't these two statements completely contradictory of each other? You claim that stats aren't everything, and yet your whole argument ultimately comes down to our record with/without Rondo. Are you dismissing all of the reasons (that others have already pointed out multiple times) about why the TEAM might have been slumping during the first few months of the season or was Green's comeback from surgery and Bradley's absence Rondo's fault too? 

In many of Rondo's dominate games this year...in his trip doubles....we didn't win. Why is that?

vs CHI 20/10/9 - W
vs ORL 15/16/9 - W
vs PHI 16/14/13 - L
vs DAL 16/15/9 - W
vs ATL 14/10/11 - W
vs CHA 17/12/10 - W
vs NYK 23/11/10 - L
vs ATL 16/11/10 - L (game where he tore his ACL))

We're 5-3 when Rondo dominates/has a triple double this season. Overall, the C's have won 23 games and have lost just 5 when he gets a triple dub. So my guess is to look at how the other players performed in those losses if you really want to know why we didn't win.

contradictory? I'm talking about statistics that are not 'wins' vs 'losses'...so no...it's not contradictory. I also went on to say later in this thread that I've looked at the stats, but I rarely reference them because the stat buffs here only look at stats and when you have credible ones, you're just skewing them to say what you want. then, you get called everything but a child of God when you're not on Rondo's...umm...'train'.

And how do you add games that aren't triple doubles...aren't we talking about those? We're 2-3, and in those 2 games he didn't have a dominate scoring total either. and I apologize cuz I meant high scoring domination as well. so forgive me there

[indeedproceed]

I'd want the better player, we need talent over fit right now, and Rondo is head, shoulders, and feet above Sullinger right now.

[zimbo]

you guys get really upset when someone disagrees with you lol

sheesh

And you don't? All of your posts above suggest otherwise.

[Lightskinsmurf]

Everyone who said sullinger should pretty much be banned for such absurdity 

Rondo lovers really need to get a grip. Just because people don't put rondo on this high pedestal that some of you think he should be on does NOT mean you have to be so nasty just because someone disagrees with you.

Some people on here didn't like the way this team played when rondo was controlling the offense. That is completely understandable.

Some people think him coming back could mess with chemistry, hard to argue how that might indeed be a possibility and even has a realistic chance of happening.

Its also hard to argue that this teams biggest problem right now is not having enough quality bigs who can rebound and keep people out the paint.

So, even tho you may disagree *And that's fine* acting like people that pick sullinger are morons is completely uncalled for and not even remotely true.

  Wanting to go into the playoffs with Sully instead of Rondo is similar to wanting to play with Green instead of Garnett or Bradley over Pierce. The Celts can go into a playoff series with Rondo and there's a decent chance he'll be the best or second best player in the series. Are you claiming that you can say the same about Sully, or that having such players aren't overly necessary to win in the postseason?

I disagree with everything in bold. Rondo is no where near as important to this team as pierce or KG. Also, what I'm saying is, I have yet to see THIS TEAM play well when rondo was the one controlling the offense.

By this team I mean this year. What I'm saying is, I could see rondo coming back and the chemistry this team built go straight in the toilet. What I'm claiming is this teams biggest need is having another BIG next to KG that can rebound and keep people out the paint.

Id rather have another good big next to KG than to have rondo come back If I had to pick between the two. If you disagree, whatever. That's my stance.

[sed522002]

Neither. We have Shav (have him play 1-5)lol!!    lIghten up folks these are all just opinions.