Rondo and Green just don't mesh together?

[Galeto]

What else does he do besides score? Rebound? No. Assists? No. The guy plays most games like he is not interested.

Defense is half of the game and he plays it really well.  And with versatility.

If anyone watched Jeff Green play defense I don't see how they can say "oh he isn't interested".  Does no one watch defense?

I'm not saying he is one of your core players to build around.  But he isn't overpaid like people say for what he brings and he's a really nice complementary player.  An effecient player who scores 16 a night on average, spaces the floor, shoots threes well, is a good defender, has length, and every once in a while really goes off.

Nothing to be so negative about.

Agreed...I couldn't have said it better myself. Jeff Green is a nice piece to have, not just for the Celts, but for any team. Which is why I believe it when Mike Gorman is saying there seems to be plenty of interest around the league in Green recently. He can fit in well on any team, because he is an efficient scorer, a solid defender, and a versatile player, whom does not need to dominate the ball to be effective. He can score in a variety of ways--off the ball, in transition, off the dribble, and even off last second isos due to broken plays.

Green is certainly not a #1 option on a team with championship aspirations, but he would make a great 3rd option on any team. He takes a lot of flak for a player who has been an efficient leading scorer for the C's all season long. Green is also very capable of guarding opposing teams' best wing players on a nightly basis, which is clearly an underrated part of his game. His versatility also should not go unnoticed, although I like him better as a SG/SF swingman, than a SF/PF combo. I think his strength/size/defensive advantage at SG is far more valuable, than his quickness advantage at PF.

But anyways, Ainge did not sign Green to be a #1 option on offense, and he is not paid like one either, which many people tend to forget. He is really only the leading scorer on this team because Ainge traded away our top 2 scorers from last yr (PP & KG) for inferior players & draft picks, rather than equivalent scorers. (A trade that I am more than fine with, for the record...Even though it was hard to handle at first).

And even as the Celts' De Facto leading scorer this season, Green hasn't exactly been the designated #1 option on offense. Bradley has actually lead the team in shot attempts, rather than Green. Leading your team in scoring, but not shot attempts, is the sign of an efficient leading scorer. That is a very good trait to have, as most wing players who lead their teams in scoring, also lead their teams in shot attempts.

Leading the team in scoring while not leading in shot attempts is not the definition of an efficient scorer when 16.0 pts is good enough to lead the team.  That's the definition of a bad team.

I guess I do criticize Green often but it's pretty irritating to read about his versatility when he's almost as one-dimensional as Nick Young.

[tarheelsxxiii]

Well for what it's worth, that seemed to be my take-away last season.  Rondo and Green don't mix.  Green needs the ball to be effective.  He needs to drive inside  and do his thing.  In the Rondo-centric offense, Green basically just stood around.  Part of the reason we played better last season without Rondo was because Green stepped up in Rondo's absence.  It's not in the least bit surprising to me that Green's best games lately have come with Rondo sitting.

And btw... what's the grace period on Rondo's return?  So far he's been crap.  Do we not get to fairly judge him as a "star" until next season?  Because as of right now,  his trade value is plummeting.

Dude, how short-sighted could you be? He has played like 3 games, hasn't he?

I won't be able to sleep until I know what you propose we do with Rondo, given your impressions of him at this point. The entire roster as a whole, actually, if you'd like to elaborate beyond Rondo.

[LarBrd33]

Well for what it's worth, that seemed to be my take-away last season.  Rondo and Green don't mix.  Green needs the ball to be effective.  He needs to drive inside  and do his thing.  In the Rondo-centric offense, Green basically just stood around.  Part of the reason we played better last season without Rondo was because Green stepped up in Rondo's absence.  It's not in the least bit surprising to me that Green's best games lately have come with Rondo sitting.

And btw... what's the grace period on Rondo's return?  So far he's been crap.  Do we not get to fairly judge him as a "star" until next season?  Because as of right now,  his trade value is plummeting.

Dude, how short-sighted could you be? He has played like 3 games, hasn't he?

I won't be able to sleep until I know what you propose we do with Rondo, given your impressions of him at this point. The entire roster as a whole, actually, if you'd like to elaborate beyond Rondo.

You know Rondo and Green played together last year, right?

Look... I get flack on this forum for "hating" Rondo.  That's nonsense.  We live in the age of hyperbole.  If you don't think something is the greatest thing ever, you apparently must "hate it".   I've said countless times here that Rondo is my favorite player on the Celtics.  I just try to keep a level head and admittedly go overboard sometimes.  I'm a blatant pessimist.  There are plenty of members on this forum (BBallTim and Celtics18, for example) who are blatant optimists.   It's all in good fun.  There's no ulterior motive here. 

But anyways, reiterating what I said earlier in this thread... Rondo and Green didn't play well together last season.  We were below .500 with Rondo running the show.  Green's numbers were lacking.  Green was tentative.  He mostly stood around.   Rondo's ball-dominating didn't mesh with Green at all.   We all basically expected that those two would play great together... Green would run the floor with Rondo, get lots of fast breaks and alley oops.  It never happened.  Rondo didn't make Green look good.

Then suddenly Rondo gets injured and Green's game blows up.   The apologists (the blatant optimists) claim this was because Green was finally healthy.  The naysayers (the blatant pessimists like myself) say this is because Green and Rondo don't play well together.  I'm no expert in the NBA.  But I do watch the games... and from what I see the problem is that Green needs the ball to be effective.  He needs to have possessions to do Jeff Green things.  He needs to penetrate into the lane.  He needs to attack the hoop.  In the game he lit up the Heat, it was Green attacking the basket play after play after play.   This does not seem to happen with a Rondo-centric offense.  In a Rondo centric offense, Rondo runs around, other people get open and Rondo either goes for a layup or kicks it out to a shooter.   So far, they haven't found a way to allow Rondo to control the ball at the same time as Green.  Fundamentally, it doesn't make sense how Green can flourish attacking the basket in a Rondo-centric offense. Then there's the added problem in that Rondo's greatest weakness is his shooting.  He's a poor offensive weapon.  He's almost a liability without the basketball, because no defense will respect him as a threat to hit open shots.   So if you give the ball to Green and let him do his thing...  Rondo's not helping spread the floor without the basketball.  It just doesn't seem to work.

I have a bias, because Im on one side of an endless debate... but I think my theory has merit. 

[BballTim]

Well for what it's worth, that seemed to be my take-away last season.  Rondo and Green don't mix.  Green needs the ball to be effective.  He needs to drive inside  and do his thing.  In the Rondo-centric offense, Green basically just stood around.  Part of the reason we played better last season without Rondo was because Green stepped up in Rondo's absence.  It's not in the least bit surprising to me that Green's best games lately have come with Rondo sitting.

And btw... what's the grace period on Rondo's return?  So far he's been crap.  Do we not get to fairly judge him as a "star" until next season?  Because as of right now,  his trade value is plummeting.

Dude, how short-sighted could you be? He has played like 3 games, hasn't he?

I won't be able to sleep until I know what you propose we do with Rondo, given your impressions of him at this point. The entire roster as a whole, actually, if you'd like to elaborate beyond Rondo.

You know Rondo and Green played together last year, right?

Look... I get flack on this forum for "hating" Rondo.  That's nonsense.  We live in the age of hyperbole.  If you don't think something is the greatest thing ever, you apparently must "hate it".   I've said countless times here that Rondo is my favorite player on the Celtics.  I just try to keep a level head and admittedly go overboard sometimes. 

  Gotta love hyperbole about hyperbole. It's not a matter of whether you think Rondo's the greatest thing ever, it's at least having an inkling of what he does well and how it affects the team. Case in point, a few weeks ago you were saying that claiming Rondo was responsible for Ray and Paul becoming more efficient scorers when Rondo took more control of the offense was no different that attributing LeBron's efficiency to Mario Chalmers. That's not you pointing out that Rondo "isn't the greatest thing ever", it's not having any idea why someone who gets his teammates open looks and makes well timed and well placed passes can have a positive effect on how well they score.

I'm a blatant pessimist.  There are plenty of members on this forum (BBallTim and Celtics18, for example) who are blatant optimists.   It's all in good fun.  There's no ulterior motive here. 

  I'm more of a realist. I'm sure it seems like optimism to someone who posted many a time that Rondo's injury might have ended his career but that's not the case.

But anyways, reiterating what I said earlier in this thread... Rondo and Green didn't play well together last season.  We were below .500 with Rondo running the show.  Green's numbers were lacking.  Green was tentative.  He mostly stood around.   Rondo's ball-dominating didn't mesh with Green at all.   We all basically expected that those two would play great together... Green would run the floor with Rondo, get lots of fast breaks and alley oops.  It never happened.  Rondo didn't make Green look good.

Then suddenly Rondo gets injured and Green's game blows up.   The apologists (the blatant optimists) claim this was because Green was finally healthy.  The naysayers (the blatant pessimists like myself) say this is because Green and Rondo don't play well together.

  One of the main problems with your point is that there were a ton of things that changed significantly over the course of the season last year but you only noticed one, Rondo's injury. You only talk in terms of "with and without Rondo" and "we were better without Rondo". Here are a few things you missed:

  The defense was terrible with KG on the bench early last year but improved significantly over the course of the year.

  PP and Jet were both struggling with injuries in Dec/Jan, especially January. In November they combined for 31 ppg and .590 TS%. After the all-star break they combined for 29 ppg on .590 TS%. In January they combined for 23 ppg on .500 TS%. That's a fairly big hit.

  As you noticed, Jeff Green got off to a slow start last year, which was attributable to his coming back from injury.

  Are these things that you never observed, or did you not think that they would have any effect on our won-loss record? If you noticed them and thought that they had a big effect on our record (they did) then don't you think "the team was better without Rondo" is disingenuous? Or are you claiming that Rondo was responsible for PP's playing worse when playing through an injury, or the defense the bigs played when KG was on the bench? Why would you think factoring those things in when considering what happened during the season makes someone an apologist?

  As for Green in particular, take a look at his splits from last year when you get a chance. His TS% was around 50% in November and December, 59% in January and 59% after the all-star break. His ORtg averaged about 90 in Nov/Dec, 107 in January and 107 after the all-star break. FYI, Rondo played in January when Green's play was getting significantly better. It didn't happen when Rondo left the lineup, it was happening before then, you just never noticed.

  What did happen when Rondo went out was Sully went out for the year so Green's minutes increased. *That's* what you noticed, and you're trying to claim that Green putting up bigger stats when he played more minutes to his not meshing with Rondo, and you're tailoring your analysis of Green's game on that claim. If you checked Green's synergy numbers in 2013 he was near the top of the league in spot up shooting and not that great in isolations, or pretty much the opposite of your takeaway from what happened.

[PhoSita]

I'm not saying he is one of your core players to build around.  But he isn't overpaid like people say for what he brings and he's a really nice complementary player.  An effecient player who scores 16 a night on average, spaces the floor, shoots threes well, is a good defender, has length, and every once in a while really goes off.

Nothing to be so negative about.

Green's game to game production is fine for a complementary player, and you're right that his paycheck isn't so bad even in that light.

However, this is a team currently in transition.  The Celtics don't yet have a competitive core in place.  That makes wholly complementary players like Green expendable.

It's hard to argue that Green is anything other than a complementary player, because you can't count on him to produce in any given game.  You never know when he'll be engaged and when he won't be.  His limited repertoire of offensive moves only works against certain opponents, and he really doesn't score much if his outside shot isn't falling.  When he isn't scoring, he doesn't do much else except play solid individual defense.

Put Green on the Clippers, Spurs, Grizzlies, or T-Wolves, for example, and he'd be fine.  He could blend in or stand out depending on the opponent and his mood and not get too much attention either way.

On this team, though, I'd rather have a cheaper guy who scores less but makes hustle plays and has more upside as an all-around player.

[BballTim]

I'm not saying he is one of your core players to build around.  But he isn't overpaid like people say for what he brings and he's a really nice complementary player.  An effecient player who scores 16 a night on average, spaces the floor, shoots threes well, is a good defender, has length, and every once in a while really goes off.

Nothing to be so negative about.

Green's game to game production is fine for a complementary player, and you're right that his paycheck isn't so bad even in that light.

However, this is a team currently in transition.  The Celtics don't yet have a competitive core in place.  That makes wholly complementary players like Green expendable.

It's hard to argue that Green is anything other than a complementary player, because you can't count on him to produce in any given game.  You never know when he'll be engaged and when he won't be.  His limited repertoire of offensive moves only works against certain opponents, and he really doesn't score much if his outside shot isn't falling.  When he isn't scoring, he doesn't do much else except play solid individual defense.

Put Green on the Clippers, Spurs, Grizzlies, or T-Wolves, for example, and he'd be fine.  He could blend in or stand out depending on the opponent and his mood and not get too much attention either way.

On this team, though, I'd rather have a cheaper guy who scores less but makes hustle plays and has more upside as an all-around player.

  That depends on how long you expect the rebuild to take. If Danny thinks he can get a couple of players in reasonably soon then it doesn't make sense to get rid of the complementary players and then try to acquire similar players shortly thereafter.

[PhoSita]

I'm not saying he is one of your core players to build around.  But he isn't overpaid like people say for what he brings and he's a really nice complementary player.  An effecient player who scores 16 a night on average, spaces the floor, shoots threes well, is a good defender, has length, and every once in a while really goes off.

Nothing to be so negative about.

Green's game to game production is fine for a complementary player, and you're right that his paycheck isn't so bad even in that light.

However, this is a team currently in transition.  The Celtics don't yet have a competitive core in place.  That makes wholly complementary players like Green expendable.

It's hard to argue that Green is anything other than a complementary player, because you can't count on him to produce in any given game.  You never know when he'll be engaged and when he won't be.  His limited repertoire of offensive moves only works against certain opponents, and he really doesn't score much if his outside shot isn't falling.  When he isn't scoring, he doesn't do much else except play solid individual defense.

Put Green on the Clippers, Spurs, Grizzlies, or T-Wolves, for example, and he'd be fine.  He could blend in or stand out depending on the opponent and his mood and not get too much attention either way.

On this team, though, I'd rather have a cheaper guy who scores less but makes hustle plays and has more upside as an all-around player.

  That depends on how long you expect the rebuild to take. If Danny thinks he can get a couple of players in reasonably soon then it doesn't make sense to get rid of the complementary players and then try to acquire similar players shortly thereafter.

That's true, it does depend on the timetable. 

In any case, I'm not saying the team should just dump Green ASAP.  But by no means is he a core piece the team should be reluctant to trade.  Green is just an okay player which means it's not that hard to think of trade scenarios involving Green that would make the Celtics better -- now and in the future.

[Snakehead]

I'm not saying he is one of your core players to build around.  But he isn't overpaid like people say for what he brings and he's a really nice complementary player.  An effecient player who scores 16 a night on average, spaces the floor, shoots threes well, is a good defender, has length, and every once in a while really goes off.

Nothing to be so negative about.

Green's game to game production is fine for a complementary player, and you're right that his paycheck isn't so bad even in that light.

However, this is a team currently in transition.  The Celtics don't yet have a competitive core in place.  That makes wholly complementary players like Green expendable.

It's hard to argue that Green is anything other than a complementary player, because you can't count on him to produce in any given game.  You never know when he'll be engaged and when he won't be.  His limited repertoire of offensive moves only works against certain opponents, and he really doesn't score much if his outside shot isn't falling.  When he isn't scoring, he doesn't do much else except play solid individual defense.

Put Green on the Clippers, Spurs, Grizzlies, or T-Wolves, for example, and he'd be fine.  He could blend in or stand out depending on the opponent and his mood and not get too much attention either way.

On this team, though, I'd rather have a cheaper guy who scores less but makes hustle plays and has more upside as an all-around player.

  That depends on how long you expect the rebuild to take. If Danny thinks he can get a couple of players in reasonably soon then it doesn't make sense to get rid of the complementary players and then try to acquire similar players shortly thereafter.

That's true, it does depend on the timetable. 

In any case, I'm not saying the team should just dump Green ASAP.  But by no means is he a core piece the team should be reluctant to trade.  Green is just an okay player which means it's not that hard to think of trade scenarios involving Green that would make the Celtics better -- now and in the future.

I totally agree for what it's worth.  I really like Jeff a lot, but I understand if he goes.  Depending on how your team is made up, you just might not have that money to spend on a guy like Jeff.  You might have three All-Stars and not much else.

But certain teams make it work, like the Pacers for example.  But the way to look at it is to think if we weren't relying on Jeff to be a 1st or 2nd scoring option. 

Like the Blazers are a great offensive team and their third leading scorer is Matthews at 16 PPG.  If Jeff was our third scorer at that clip, and he can occasionally go off for 40 (often against his best competition), shoot threes, play plus defense, and play 3 different positions, that's a really nice and versatile player to have.  Oh and he's clutch too.

I think other teams would be great fits for Jeff.  I'd be trying to trade for him if I could swing it.  Houston or Memphis always made a lot of sense.

But if he stays here and we work in around him and build up a strong team, I am going to be happy.

I get why it frustrates people (and it is for me to, to an extent) but there's something about how Jeff occasionally just goes off that's fun to watch.  And when he really is driving to the rim aggressively, he has maybe the most graceful pretty drives I've seen for a guy his size (really Worthy like).  He has those long smooth stides and he holds the ball up high. And the man can dunk. 

I just enjoying watching him.  He's been through a lot and seems like a good guy to have in the locker room.

[RRNoLookPass]

What else does he do besides score? Rebound? No. Assists? No. The guy plays most games like he is not interested.

Defense is half of the game and he plays it really well.  And with versatility.

If anyone watched Jeff Green play defense I don't see how they can say "oh he isn't interested".  Does no one watch defense?

I'm not saying he is one of your core players to build around.  But he isn't overpaid like people say for what he brings and he's a really nice complementary player.  An effecient player who scores 16 a night on average, spaces the floor, shoots threes well, is a good defender, has length, and every once in a while really goes off.

Nothing to be so negative about.

Agreed...I couldn't have said it better myself. Jeff Green is a nice piece to have, not just for the Celts, but for any team. Which is why I believe it when Mike Gorman is saying there seems to be plenty of interest around the league in Green recently. He can fit in well on any team, because he is an efficient scorer, a solid defender, and a versatile player, whom does not need to dominate the ball to be effective. He can score in a variety of ways--off the ball, in transition, off the dribble, and even off last second isos due to broken plays.

Green is certainly not a #1 option on a team with championship aspirations, but he would make a great 3rd option on any team. He takes a lot of flak for a player who has been an efficient leading scorer for the C's all season long. Green is also very capable of guarding opposing teams' best wing players on a nightly basis, which is clearly an underrated part of his game. His versatility also should not go unnoticed, although I like him better as a SG/SF swingman, than a SF/PF combo. I think his strength/size/defensive advantage at SG is far more valuable, than his quickness advantage at PF.

But anyways, Ainge did not sign Green to be a #1 option on offense, and he is not paid like one either, which many people tend to forget. He is really only the leading scorer on this team because Ainge traded away our top 2 scorers from last yr (PP & KG) for inferior players & draft picks, rather than equivalent scorers. (A trade that I am more than fine with, for the record...Even though it was hard to handle at first).

And even as the Celts' De Facto leading scorer this season, Green hasn't exactly been the designated #1 option on offense. Bradley has actually lead the team in shot attempts, rather than Green. Leading your team in scoring, but not shot attempts, is the sign of an efficient leading scorer. That is a very good trait to have, as most wing players who lead their teams in scoring, also lead their teams in shot attempts.

Leading the team in scoring while not leading in shot attempts is not the definition of an efficient scorer when 16.0 pts is good enough to lead the team.  That's the definition of a bad team.

I guess I do criticize Green often but it's pretty irritating to read about his versatility when he's almost as one-dimensional as Nick Young.

How does the fact that 16.0ppg is good enough to lead the team mean that Green is not efficient? That makes no sense.

And there has been some pretty good teams with scoring leader(s) putting up around 16ppg. It's called having a balanced attack, and sharing the ball. Some of those teams are the hardest to guard. So no, it's not necessarily the definition of a bad team either.
Edit-- See 2004 NBA Championship Pistons Team (for prime example)

And Jeff Green being as one-dimensional as Nick Young? That is laughable. Nick Young is a scorer. That's it. Green is a better rebounder, a better defender, and a better team-player...because he plays on both sides of the ball...offense, AND defense...something Nick Young has never heard of.

[Galeto]

What else does he do besides score? Rebound? No. Assists? No. The guy plays most games like he is not interested.

Defense is half of the game and he plays it really well.  And with versatility.

If anyone watched Jeff Green play defense I don't see how they can say "oh he isn't interested".  Does no one watch defense?

I'm not saying he is one of your core players to build around.  But he isn't overpaid like people say for what he brings and he's a really nice complementary player.  An effecient player who scores 16 a night on average, spaces the floor, shoots threes well, is a good defender, has length, and every once in a while really goes off.

Nothing to be so negative about.

Agreed...I couldn't have said it better myself. Jeff Green is a nice piece to have, not just for the Celts, but for any team. Which is why I believe it when Mike Gorman is saying there seems to be plenty of interest around the league in Green recently. He can fit in well on any team, because he is an efficient scorer, a solid defender, and a versatile player, whom does not need to dominate the ball to be effective. He can score in a variety of ways--off the ball, in transition, off the dribble, and even off last second isos due to broken plays.

Green is certainly not a #1 option on a team with championship aspirations, but he would make a great 3rd option on any team. He takes a lot of flak for a player who has been an efficient leading scorer for the C's all season long. Green is also very capable of guarding opposing teams' best wing players on a nightly basis, which is clearly an underrated part of his game. His versatility also should not go unnoticed, although I like him better as a SG/SF swingman, than a SF/PF combo. I think his strength/size/defensive advantage at SG is far more valuable, than his quickness advantage at PF.

But anyways, Ainge did not sign Green to be a #1 option on offense, and he is not paid like one either, which many people tend to forget. He is really only the leading scorer on this team because Ainge traded away our top 2 scorers from last yr (PP & KG) for inferior players & draft picks, rather than equivalent scorers. (A trade that I am more than fine with, for the record...Even though it was hard to handle at first).

And even as the Celts' De Facto leading scorer this season, Green hasn't exactly been the designated #1 option on offense. Bradley has actually lead the team in shot attempts, rather than Green. Leading your team in scoring, but not shot attempts, is the sign of an efficient leading scorer. That is a very good trait to have, as most wing players who lead their teams in scoring, also lead their teams in shot attempts.

Leading the team in scoring while not leading in shot attempts is not the definition of an efficient scorer when 16.0 pts is good enough to lead the team.  That's the definition of a bad team.

I guess I do criticize Green often but it's pretty irritating to read about his versatility when he's almost as one-dimensional as Nick Young.

How does the fact that 16.0ppg is good enough to lead the team mean that Green is not efficient? That makes no sense.

And there has been some pretty good teams with scoring leader(s) putting up around 16ppg. It's called having a balanced attack, and sharing the ball. Some of those teams are the hardest to guard. So no, it's not necessarily the definition of a bad team either.
Edit-- See 2004 NBA Championship Pistons Team (for prime example)

And Jeff Green being as one-dimensional as Nick Young? That is laughable. Nick Young is a scorer. That's it. Green is a better rebounder, a better defender, and a better team-player...because he plays on both sides of the ball...offense, AND defense...something Nick Young has never heard of.

Green averages 16 pts on 13.3 shots.  Even without knowing anything else, you should know that that's not efficient, regardless of whether the first number leads the team and the second number comes in second.  He's not efficient because his three point shooting isn't good enough to make up for below-average shooting on twos and a mediocre free throw attempt rate.

Green's defense has been pretty poor this season.  I think he's been below-average on defense, below-average as a playmaker and below-average on the boards for his position and yeah, his scoring is at best mediocre.  He's not a statsheet-stuffer or a two-way difference maker.  I think he's been pretty close to Nick Young this season.

[LilRip]

And there has been some pretty good teams with scoring leader(s) putting up around 16ppg. It's called having a balanced attack, and sharing the ball. Some of those teams are the hardest to guard. So no, it's not necessarily the definition of a bad team either.
Edit-- See 2004 NBA Championship Pistons Team (for prime example)

for the record, Rip and Billups averaged 17.5 and 17 points respectively, and also, Jeff Green wouldn't be starting on that Pistons team.

[D.o.s.]

How does the fact that 16.0ppg is good enough to lead the team mean that Green is not efficient? That makes no sense.

And there has been some pretty good teams with scoring leader(s) putting up around 16ppg. It's called having a balanced attack, and sharing the ball. Some of those teams are the hardest to guard. So no, it's not necessarily the definition of a bad team either.
Edit-- See 2004 NBA Championship Pistons Team (for prime example)

And Jeff Green being as one-dimensional as Nick Young? That is laughable. Nick Young is a scorer. That's it. Green is a better rebounder, a better defender, and a better team-player...because he plays on both sides of the ball...offense, AND defense...something Nick Young has never heard of.

Green averages 16 pts on 13.3 shots.  Even without knowing anything else, you should know that that's not efficient, regardless of whether the first number leads the team and the second number comes in second.  He's not efficient because his three point shooting isn't good enough to make up for below-average shooting on twos and a mediocre free throw attempt rate.

Green's defense has been pretty poor this season.  I think he's been below-average on defense, below-average as a playmaker and below-average on the boards for his position and yeah, his scoring is at best mediocre.  He's not a statsheet-stuffer or a two-way difference maker.  I think he's been pretty close to Nick Young this season.

A) Did you guys know that Nick Young and Jeff Green are almost the same age? And that Nick Young is actually older? Yeah, me neither.

B) You can compare their numbers so far here:
http://bkref.com/tiny/mNfLm

[chenaren]

I said it

[LarBrd33]

I said it

I openly questioned whether or not the recent game against Philly was the ONLY game where Rondo and Green both flourished at the same time.  Check the box score:  http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400489599

Is there any other example of those two both playing well at the same time?  I couldn't remember it ever happening. 

I have my theories as to why... I explained them above in detail.

[Chief]

I said it

I openly questioned whether or not the recent game against Philly was the ONLY game where Rondo and Green both flourished at the same time.  Check the box score:  http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?id=400489599

Is there any other example of those two both playing well at the same time?  I couldn't remember it ever happening. 

I have my theories as to why... I explained them above in detail.

I 100% agree. Unless Green is red hot from 3 point land, you won't see both having a good game.