Are these PGs better than our Rondo?

[D.o.s.]

All these guys are better.  I'd take all of them over Rondo.  These guys aren't overrated by their flashy scoring.  Scoring is a pretty big deal for a point guard too.  They all happen to be pretty good to great passers too, yes, even Westbrook. 

Rondo's on/off offensive impact including games he's missed entirely aren't even all that good.  They're actually in the negative.  Sure Rondo's assist number are gaudy but maybe pounding the ball for 85 percent of possessions isn't the most optimal way to run an offense.  If he doesn't pound the ball, it's hard to run anything through the  middle of the court if he stands on the wing because his defender can wreak havoc.  He's also by far the most turnover prone point guard in transition.  I scoff whenever I hear the phrase "run with Rondo."  For one, Rondo has to cut down on his transition turnovers.  Two, he has to have a faster internal clock to take advantage of secondary transition opportunities.

Which of them would you prefer to have over Rondo in a huge playoff game? I can't imagine you choosing someone else... maybe CP3 and Parker. Literally, every other choice seems incredibly silly.

I don't know if you can separate the player from the team at that point (the "VERY IMPORTANT GAME"), but I'm absolutely taking the Spurs and the Bulls over the Cavs or the Clippers, with all players completely healthy.

Which is another wrinkle in this idea of "better." How much does team success determine our assessment of individual ability? (here's looking at you, Chris Paul). What about health--interesting because almost all of these guys have had season ending injuries except for Parker and Irving--who is made of glass/victim to Cleveland's overcaution anyway?

I agree with the top. If we are talking final possession, game on the line, opinion probably changes... but again, and like I said at the outset, it's nearly impossible to answer this question without addressing a LOT of caveats...

Making a team better is where I think Rondo will excel. Granted, he hasn't done it with a weak cast, I still think he can carry a team when it matters (big game, big series, etc). And reiterating the above... I made tentative suggestions based on variability in health. If Rose comes back a shell of his former self, for example, he's going to fall drastically.

Right, I agree with you. I'm just curious as to how someone can say "all of these players are better than Rondo" with any kind of straight face, given the outrageous complexity of the statement.

General FWIW: Rondo, Rose, Westbrook, and Paul have all had   knee injuries that caused them to miss significant time. Only Paul's team (the 09-10 Hornets) missed the playoffs.

[BigAlTheFuture]

I'd take any of these guys with the exception of Tony Parker over Rondo. Even then, you can make a case for Parker.

[Galeto]

All these guys are better.  I'd take all of them over Rondo.  These guys aren't overrated by their flashy scoring.  Scoring is a pretty big deal for a point guard too.  They all happen to be pretty good to great passers too, yes, even Westbrook. 

Rondo's on/off offensive impact including games he's missed entirely aren't even all that good.  They're actually in the negative.  Sure Rondo's assist number are gaudy but maybe pounding the ball for 85 percent of possessions isn't the most optimal way to run an offense.  If he doesn't pound the ball, it's hard to run anything through the  middle of the court if he stands on the wing because his defender can wreak havoc.  He's also by far the most turnover prone point guard in transition.  I scoff whenever I hear the phrase "run with Rondo."  For one, Rondo has to cut down on his transition turnovers.  Two, he has to have a faster internal clock to take advantage of secondary transition opportunities.

Which of them would you prefer to have over Rondo in a huge playoff game? I can't imagine you choosing someone else... maybe CP3 and Parker. Literally, every other choice seems incredibly silly.

Incredibly silly?  What constitutes a huge playoff game?  Aren't they all huge, mostly?  Rondo's had bad and great playoff games.  So have the others except for Irving who hasn't had a chance yet.  Playoff Rondo changes it from "I'd take all of them over Rondo" to "I'd take anyone of them."  Overall, until Rondo can be versatile enough to play both on and off the ball, he is below the others to me.  That's not really a knock.  All the guys on the list are elite point guards.  Saying Rondo is behind them is not an insult.

[tarheelsxxiii]

All these guys are better.  I'd take all of them over Rondo.  These guys aren't overrated by their flashy scoring.  Scoring is a pretty big deal for a point guard too.  They all happen to be pretty good to great passers too, yes, even Westbrook. 

Rondo's on/off offensive impact including games he's missed entirely aren't even all that good.  They're actually in the negative.  Sure Rondo's assist number are gaudy but maybe pounding the ball for 85 percent of possessions isn't the most optimal way to run an offense.  If he doesn't pound the ball, it's hard to run anything through the  middle of the court if he stands on the wing because his defender can wreak havoc.  He's also by far the most turnover prone point guard in transition.  I scoff whenever I hear the phrase "run with Rondo."  For one, Rondo has to cut down on his transition turnovers.  Two, he has to have a faster internal clock to take advantage of secondary transition opportunities.

Which of them would you prefer to have over Rondo in a huge playoff game? I can't imagine you choosing someone else... maybe CP3 and Parker. Literally, every other choice seems incredibly silly.

I don't know if you can separate the player from the team at that point (the "VERY IMPORTANT GAME"), but I'm absolutely taking the Spurs and the Bulls over the Cavs or the Clippers, with all players completely healthy.

Which is another wrinkle in this idea of "better." How much does team success determine our assessment of individual ability? (here's looking at you, Chris Paul). What about health--interesting because almost all of these guys have had season ending injuries except for Parker and Irving--who is made of glass/victim to Cleveland's overcaution anyway?

I agree with the top. If we are talking final possession, game on the line, opinion probably changes... but again, and like I said at the outset, it's nearly impossible to answer this question without addressing a LOT of caveats...

Making a team better is where I think Rondo will excel. Granted, he hasn't done it with a weak cast, I still think he can carry a team when it matters (big game, big series, etc). And reiterating the above... I made tentative suggestions based on variability in health. If Rose comes back a shell of his former self, for example, he's going to fall drastically.

Right, I agree with you. I'm just curious as to how someone can say "all of these players are better than Rondo" with any kind of straight face, given the outrageous complexity of the statement.

General FWIW: Rondo, Rose, Westbrook, and Paul have all had   knee injuries that caused them to miss significant time. Only Paul's team (the 09-10 Hornets) missed the playoffs.

I agree. Question can probably be discussed more thoroughly with specifics. As sort of a digression, I do worry about Rondo and Rose's returns. Of all the injuries on can have, and despite medical advancements... knee injuries still change the game in bball and football.

[tarheelsxxiii]

All these guys are better.  I'd take all of them over Rondo.  These guys aren't overrated by their flashy scoring.  Scoring is a pretty big deal for a point guard too.  They all happen to be pretty good to great passers too, yes, even Westbrook. 

Rondo's on/off offensive impact including games he's missed entirely aren't even all that good.  They're actually in the negative.  Sure Rondo's assist number are gaudy but maybe pounding the ball for 85 percent of possessions isn't the most optimal way to run an offense.  If he doesn't pound the ball, it's hard to run anything through the  middle of the court if he stands on the wing because his defender can wreak havoc.  He's also by far the most turnover prone point guard in transition.  I scoff whenever I hear the phrase "run with Rondo."  For one, Rondo has to cut down on his transition turnovers.  Two, he has to have a faster internal clock to take advantage of secondary transition opportunities.

Which of them would you prefer to have over Rondo in a huge playoff game? I can't imagine you choosing someone else... maybe CP3 and Parker. Literally, every other choice seems incredibly silly.

Incredibly silly?  What constitutes a huge playoff game?  Aren't they all huge, mostly?  Rondo's had bad and great playoff games.  So have the others except for Irving who hasn't had a chance yet.  Playoff Rondo changes it from "I'd take all of them over Rondo" to "I'd take anyone of them."  Overall, until Rondo can be versatile enough to play both on and off the ball, he is below the others to me.  That's not really a knock.  All the guys on the list are elite point guards.  Saying Rondo is behind them is not an insult.

That's wild. Rondo's impact/numbers were comparable to Lebron's in arguably his biggest game as a Celtic. I can't imagine how you could perceive his playoff performances otherwise.

Edit: Play off the ball? Which of the PGs on the list play off the ball better? And why would that differentiate him from the others?

[Galeto]

All these guys are better.  I'd take all of them over Rondo.  These guys aren't overrated by their flashy scoring.  Scoring is a pretty big deal for a point guard too.  They all happen to be pretty good to great passers too, yes, even Westbrook. 

Rondo's on/off offensive impact including games he's missed entirely aren't even all that good.  They're actually in the negative.  Sure Rondo's assist number are gaudy but maybe pounding the ball for 85 percent of possessions isn't the most optimal way to run an offense.  If he doesn't pound the ball, it's hard to run anything through the  middle of the court if he stands on the wing because his defender can wreak havoc.  He's also by far the most turnover prone point guard in transition.  I scoff whenever I hear the phrase "run with Rondo."  For one, Rondo has to cut down on his transition turnovers.  Two, he has to have a faster internal clock to take advantage of secondary transition opportunities.

Which of them would you prefer to have over Rondo in a huge playoff game? I can't imagine you choosing someone else... maybe CP3 and Parker. Literally, every other choice seems incredibly silly.

I don't know if you can separate the player from the team at that point (the "VERY IMPORTANT GAME"), but I'm absolutely taking the Spurs and the Bulls over the Cavs or the Clippers, with all players completely healthy.

Which is another wrinkle in this idea of "better." How much does team success determine our assessment of individual ability? (here's looking at you, Chris Paul). What about health--interesting because almost all of these guys have had season ending injuries except for Parker and Irving--who is made of glass/victim to Cleveland's overcaution anyway?

I agree with the top. If we are talking final possession, game on the line, opinion probably changes... but again, and like I said at the outset, it's nearly impossible to answer this question without addressing a LOT of caveats...

Making a team better is where I think Rondo will excel. Granted, he hasn't done it with a weak cast, I still think he can carry a team when it matters (big game, big series, etc). And reiterating the above... I made tentative suggestions based on variability in health. If Rose comes back a shell of his former self, for example, he's going to fall drastically.

Right, I agree with you. I'm just curious as to how someone can say "all of these players are better than Rondo" with any kind of straight face, given the outrageous complexity of the statement.

General FWIW: Rondo, Rose, Westbrook, and Paul have all had   knee injuries that caused them to miss significant time. Only Paul's team (the 09-10 Hornets) missed the playoffs.

What is the outrageous complexity part? All these guys can be no.1 scoring options and also run a team.  That gives them more value than Rondo.  If they all wanted to focus on getting assists like Rondo, they have the passing ability to put up gaudy assist numbers too.  The opposite doesn't work because Rondo's three point and free throw shooting is so subpar.

[Galeto]

All these guys are better.  I'd take all of them over Rondo.  These guys aren't overrated by their flashy scoring.  Scoring is a pretty big deal for a point guard too.  They all happen to be pretty good to great passers too, yes, even Westbrook. 

Rondo's on/off offensive impact including games he's missed entirely aren't even all that good.  They're actually in the negative.  Sure Rondo's assist number are gaudy but maybe pounding the ball for 85 percent of possessions isn't the most optimal way to run an offense.  If he doesn't pound the ball, it's hard to run anything through the  middle of the court if he stands on the wing because his defender can wreak havoc.  He's also by far the most turnover prone point guard in transition.  I scoff whenever I hear the phrase "run with Rondo."  For one, Rondo has to cut down on his transition turnovers.  Two, he has to have a faster internal clock to take advantage of secondary transition opportunities.

Which of them would you prefer to have over Rondo in a huge playoff game? I can't imagine you choosing someone else... maybe CP3 and Parker. Literally, every other choice seems incredibly silly.

Incredibly silly?  What constitutes a huge playoff game?  Aren't they all huge, mostly?  Rondo's had bad and great playoff games.  So have the others except for Irving who hasn't had a chance yet.  Playoff Rondo changes it from "I'd take all of them over Rondo" to "I'd take anyone of them."  Overall, until Rondo can be versatile enough to play both on and off the ball, he is below the others to me.  That's not really a knock.  All the guys on the list are elite point guards.  Saying Rondo is behind them is not an insult.

That's wild. Rondo's impact/numbers were comparable to Lebron's in arguably his biggest game as a Celtic. I can't imagine how you could perceive his playoff performances otherwise.

Edit: Play off the ball? Which of the PGs on the list play off the ball better? And why would that differentiate him from the others?

One game?  That's what you're going on?  Rondo's a great playoff performer but one great game in a game 7 of the ECF does not put him in some unreachable level.

Chris Paul has some of the greatest playoff numbers of all time.  They are far superior to Rondo's.  It's not even close.  If Paul had Pierce, Garnett and Allen as teammates, he would've advanced further into the playoffs too. 

[Mazingerz]

I have an interesting proposition:

What if these PGs played each other one on one who would emerge victorious?

[chambers]

All these guys are better.  I'd take all of them over Rondo.  These guys aren't overrated by their flashy scoring.  Scoring is a pretty big deal for a point guard too.  They all happen to be pretty good to great passers too, yes, even Westbrook. 

Rondo's on/off offensive impact including games he's missed entirely aren't even all that good.  They're actually in the negative.  Sure Rondo's assist number are gaudy but maybe pounding the ball for 85 percent of possessions isn't the most optimal way to run an offense.  If he doesn't pound the ball, it's hard to run anything through the  middle of the court if he stands on the wing because his defender can wreak havoc.  He's also by far the most turnover prone point guard in transition.  I scoff whenever I hear the phrase "run with Rondo."  For one, Rondo has to cut down on his transition turnovers.  Two, he has to have a faster internal clock to take advantage of secondary transition opportunities.

Westbrook may be a slightly better overall player but he is not a better point guard than Rondo, he's also most certainly not a good passer even if he does average 6-7 assists per game. Rondo on that team could average 15 assists with Durant shooting wide open and the easy dishes to Perkins/Ibaka.
In fact I'd go as far to say that the 3 main reasons for OKC losing to the Heat in 2012 would be..
*Scott Brooks' terrible adjustments and plain being outcoached.
*Kendrick Perkins being completely and utterly useless.
*Russell Westbrook's lack of court vision and the 5-10 less shots per game that Durant gets because of his poor passing/vision/anticipation on passing.
Take a look at these.. just a few random examples from last years finals.

Not that it's really his fault, he's a tweener 2 guard who is fast enough to play PG in the Thunder's system but it hurts them. He's a tweener SG who can't shoot but his open court speed is so amazing that he can control the game to a certain extent simply with his athleticism. His basketball IQ is just poor and to be a top NBA PG you must be either half intelligent and one in a billion athletic (like Rose). Or be extremely smart and one in 10 million athletic.
Westbrook just doesn't have the IQ to be a championship caliber point guard.
He's probably a slightly better overall player than Rondo but as a point guard he's almost a liability against the premier NBA defenses in playoff half court basketball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVitzGz9g2s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXtXXWpI1BU

[PhoSita]

For various reasons, I'd take any of those players over Rondo.

That's a bold statement, if that is your decision regardless of context...

To be fair, we've never even seen Rondo play on a team that was not loaded... does his injury affect your opinion? If not, I'd be interested to know why you think he will be at the bottom of this pack.

In no particular order:

Curry -- Perhaps the best shooter in the league, plus he's not a bad passer.

Irving -- dominant handles, can pass, great shooter, super young

Rose -- Won an MVP. Didn't really deserve it, but everything he did to earn it is in his favor here -- great isolation scorer, capable passer, improved defender, focal point of the offense of a great team.

Westbrook -- He's pretty much the same player as Rose just more erratic; higher highs, lower lows.

Parker -- Led one of the league's best offensive teams to 60ish wins the past two seasons plus within inches of a title this season.  Absolute magician in the paint, underrated passer, when healthy the best point guard in the game this past season.

CP3 -- Nobody is a better pure half court player, and I wouldn't prefer to have the ball in any other player's hands in crunch time.

All of these point guards are more valuable on a regular basis than Rondo is.  Far better scorers and still more than capable of running an offense.  Much harder to game-plan for.  I also expect any of the players on this list, with the possible exception of Parker, to still be better than Rondo 3-4 years from now.  Curry, Rose, Westbrook and Irving will all be just as good if not much better by then.

[Vox_Populi]

The only ones on that list I genuinely see as better players than Rondo are Parker, Rose and Paul. I'm not saying I wouldn't trade Rondo for Curry, Irving or Westbrook, because I probably would, but I don't think they're necessarily better. At least not yet.

[bobbyv]

It depends. Do we care if our point guards play defense anymore? If the answer is no, then he's Curry and Irving are above him. If the answer is yes, I'd still put Rondo above Curry and Irving. And I still wouldn't take any other point guard over Rondo in the playoffs. The guy is a winner, plain and simple. Let me know when Curry, Irving and Paul sniff a conference finals.

Also, Rondo will always be underrated on PER due to his lack of scoring.

[Roy H.]

I have an interesting proposition:

What if these PGs played each other one on one who would emerge victorious?

Irving.

[CelticConcourse]

I have an interesting proposition:

What if these PGs played each other one on one who would emerge victorious?

Rondo! I want the right man with the right attitude, he who knows he will win.

[rjb182]

Of the players on that list:

* Chris Paul is on a level by himself, by far the best on this list and much better than Rondo.

* Rose and Westbrook are better than Rondo when healthy, but who knows about that? OTOH, Rondo has the same concerns, so it's a crapshoot.

* Steph Curry is a better overall player than Rondo, but not a better point guard. I guess I'd rather have him, but it might depend on what my team needed.

* Kyrie Irving isn't better than Rondo yet, but he could be any game now. If I had one year to contend for a championship, I'd probably rather have Rondo, but if I need to build around one of them, it's Irving every time.

* I actually feel like Tony Parker is a bit overrated at this point in time. He's as good as Rondo, but I'm not sure if he's better, particularly given their ages. By the same logic as above, though, I'd rather have Parker to win this year.

So in sum: The only player on that list who's better than Rondo without qualification is Chris Paul. There are good reasons to prefer all the others to Rondo, but there are also arguments the other way. Overall, I'd probably put Rondo around #5 or #6 on that list.