Any Truth to Scout's Rondo Comments?

[BballTim]

I see more evidence that Bigfoot, or even that the Loch Ness Monster exists, than an NBA scout that believes there are 40 pgs better than Rondo. Even 40 players.

Outside of the obvious hyperbole with the 40 PGs, I agree that Rondo is not one of the first players or even first PGs I'd choose if trying to build a franchise from the ground up.

Still waiting for Chris Paul, Kyrie, John Wall, or Russell Westbrook to actually accomplish something in the post season.  Not like CP3 or Russell don't have great teammates around them.

I signed in just to give you a TP.

I gotta add something.

The 2008 Celtics beat the 2013 Heat. The 2008 Lakers beat the 2013 Heat.

Rondo was on that team. 2nd season as a starter trying to exist in an offense based on exquisite timing and tough defense. Rondo never looked like he didn't belong despite being in his 2nd year as a pro and Paul made a lot of his own shots but he got fed and Ray and K.G. got fed by that kid. He has only grown better under the BIG time lights. Westbrook and Durant at about the same age and primed couldn't combine to take out the Heat. They got no killer instinct. Lebron and a slowed hobbled Wade do.
That's why they got rings. Kobe...he got rings. Dwight, Durant, Westbrook, CP3 , Love, and all them got jack squat.

We are running a winner out of town. Stevens...you think he's ever gonna get us rings and banners being Danny's lap dog? Who wants to come here? This episode about Rondo is more damaging to the Celtics than Rondo. Somewhere Pat Riley is laughing. We are hanging our only star out to dry months before a contract offer or a trade.

The title of this thread...it makes my head hurt. You have all lost your minds.

A bird in the hand....

When the C's won the title, Rondo was at best the fourth best player on the team. It is debatable whether Rondo was their best player in 2010; personally, at that point, I still say KG.

CP3, Wall, and Kyrie have been the defined alpha dog on their respective teams since they came into the league. Russell went to the Finals as the second best player on his team, just as Rondo did.

  2010 was KG's worst season (and playoffs) with the Celtics. Rondo picked up an injury in the Orlando series but up until then he was one of the top performers in the league in the playoffs.

[ssspence]

I see more evidence that Bigfoot, or even that the Loch Ness Monster exists, than an NBA scout that believes there are 40 pgs better than Rondo. Even 40 players.

Outside of the obvious hyperbole with the 40 PGs, I agree that Rondo is not one of the first players or even first PGs I'd choose if trying to build a franchise from the ground up.

Still waiting for Chris Paul, Kyrie, John Wall, or Russell Westbrook to actually accomplish something in the post season.  Not like CP3 or Russell don't have great teammates around them.

Making the Finals isn't "accomplishing something"?  Is this that weird line of reasoning where a championship is the only thing that means anything and anything less just means you're tied for biggest loser?

Weird line of reasoning? Are you serious? Who cares who was #2? Making it to the finals means nothing and winning it means everything.

They don't give you rings for making it to the finals. They give you rings for winning the championship.

Agreed. The Cs hang only one type of banner in the Garden -- championships.

[BballTim]

There's some truth to it.

We already had a thread on this, I think?

There is some truth to it.  At least from a fan's perspective.  Obviously I don't know how he is with his teammates and coaches.  To me, he appears aloof and he looks like he tries when it suits him.  And as far as his defense, sure looks to me that other PG's can penetrate whenever they want.  I've always thought his D sucked.  His last ditch hope defense is to try to poke it away as his man goes by.

  His "last ditch hope defense" is fairly successful. When most point guards's guy get past them they generally hang back and let the bigs try and stop him. Rondo pokes the ball away from the player a decent amount of the time and gets ripped for it here. It's like criticizing a center for trying to tip in a missed shot instead of just heading up court and leaving the rebound to the other team.

[TheFlex]

I see more evidence that Bigfoot, or even that the Loch Ness Monster exists, than an NBA scout that believes there are 40 pgs better than Rondo. Even 40 players.

Outside of the obvious hyperbole with the 40 PGs, I agree that Rondo is not one of the first players or even first PGs I'd choose if trying to build a franchise from the ground up.

Still waiting for Chris Paul, Kyrie, John Wall, or Russell Westbrook to actually accomplish something in the post season.  Not like CP3 or Russell don't have great teammates around them.

Making the Finals isn't "accomplishing something"?  Is this that weird line of reasoning where a championship is the only thing that means anything and anything less just means you're tied for biggest loser?

Weird line of reasoning? Are you serious? Who cares who was #2? Making it to the finals means nothing and winning it means everything.

They don't give you rings for making it to the finals. They give you rings for winning the championship.

Rondo has a ring as the team's fourth best player.

[Smokeeye123]

I see more evidence that Bigfoot, or even that the Loch Ness Monster exists, than an NBA scout that believes there are 40 pgs better than Rondo. Even 40 players.

Outside of the obvious hyperbole with the 40 PGs, I agree that Rondo is not one of the first players or even first PGs I'd choose if trying to build a franchise from the ground up.

Still waiting for Chris Paul, Kyrie, John Wall, or Russell Westbrook to actually accomplish something in the post season.  Not like CP3 or Russell don't have great teammates around them.

Making the Finals isn't "accomplishing something"?  Is this that weird line of reasoning where a championship is the only thing that means anything and anything less just means you're tied for biggest loser?

Weird line of reasoning? Are you serious? Who cares who was #2? Making it to the finals means nothing and winning it means everything.

They don't give you rings for making it to the finals. They give you rings for winning the championship.

so then mario chalmers is a better pg than rondo right, because hes accomplished more in the post season. Also a 37 old jason kidd was just as good as rondo when the mavs won. Ainge would trade rondo for cp3 curry westbrook irving lilliard straightup in a heartbeat. Robdo is good just not top five good.

[BballTim]

By my count, during the 33 years that I've followed the NBA, the best players on a championship by position are as follows:

Point guard: 6 (Johnson 3, Thomas 2, Billups 1)
Shooting Guard:  8 (Jordan 6, Bryant 2, Wade 1)
Small forward: 6 (Bird 3, Erving 1, James 2)
Power Forward:  6 (Duncan 4, Garnett 1, Nowitzki 1)
Center:  6  ('Neal 3, Olajuwon 2, Jabbar 1)

That doesn't exactly tell me you can't build a champion around a point guard.

Remove Kobe and Wade, and add those tallies to Shaq -- he's not there, those guys are golfing by the conference finals. What you basically have left is arguably the two best players of all time.

That this argument persists on this blog insults the collective intelligence of the group, IMO. Objectively, it's crystal clear that building around ANY guard significantly reduces the likelihood of winning in the NBA.

  That this argument persists on this blog insults the collective intelligence of the group, but not for the reason you think. It's a "can't see the forest for the trees" type of argument to begin with. The position of the player is immaterial, it's the caliber of the player that matters.

  You don't build those teams around centers or small forwards or point guards, you build them around dominant, transcendent players. Having Magic or MJ doesn't make you less likely to win titles than having Shaq or Duncan because Magic and MJ are guards. Likewise, building a team around Chris Bosh doesn't make you more likely to win a title than building a team around Deron Williams just because he's a big and not a guard. But building around Bird makes you more likely to win a title than either of them. Not because of the position he plays, but because he's a vastly superior player to either of them.

It's entirely homer to believe that Ainge intends to "build around" Rondo, and it has nothing to do with whether Rondo's the 5th best PG or the 7th best PG or the 40th best PG. It's not a worldly POV.

Hopefully we can keep Rondo, and find our franchise player another way. But Ainge shops Rondo because he recognizes he must consider all options in finding that long-term cornerstone.

  Ainge intends to build a contending team. He's not trying to build it around any particular player and he's said so many times. If he does build a title winner then people on the internet will claim that the team was built around player A or player B when neither is the case.

  Rondo's already shown the ability to be a dominant player in the playoffs. If we get another such player we'll be in good shape, and will give us a solid shot at contending without the type of player on that list. Which is great, because the odds of getting such a player are slim at best. A number of teams in the league (including many that spend much of their time in the lottery) have *never* had such a player in their history.

[D.o.s.]

I see more evidence that Bigfoot, or even that the Loch Ness Monster exists, than an NBA scout that believes there are 40 pgs better than Rondo. Even 40 players.

Outside of the obvious hyperbole with the 40 PGs, I agree that Rondo is not one of the first players or even first PGs I'd choose if trying to build a franchise from the ground up.

Still waiting for Chris Paul, Kyrie, John Wall, or Russell Westbrook to actually accomplish something in the post season.  Not like CP3 or Russell don't have great teammates around them.

Making the Finals isn't "accomplishing something"?  Is this that weird line of reasoning where a championship is the only thing that means anything and anything less just means you're tied for biggest loser?

Weird line of reasoning? Are you serious? Who cares who was #2? Making it to the finals means nothing and winning it means everything.

They don't give you rings for making it to the finals. They give you rings for winning the championship.

Agreed. The Cs hang only one type of banner in the Garden -- championships.

Yawn.

If that's the case, then Rondo's been the best player on teams that haven't won championships, and we should trade him as soon as possible because we're clearly not winning with him.

Just like we should have traded Pierce after he made a mockery of the Celtics Franchise after storming off the court in that Pacers loss. The guy was immature. didn't get it, wasn't a "true Celtic" and complained to the media about how he was a great player on a bad team. Selfish chucker who didn't make his teammates better, am I right?
 Career loser who wasn't going to really accomplish anything.
















Oh. Wait.

[Onslaught]

I see more evidence that Bigfoot, or even that the Loch Ness Monster exists, than an NBA scout that believes there are 40 pgs better than Rondo. Even 40 players.

Outside of the obvious hyperbole with the 40 PGs, I agree that Rondo is not one of the first players or even first PGs I'd choose if trying to build a franchise from the ground up.

Still waiting for Chris Paul, Kyrie, John Wall, or Russell Westbrook to actually accomplish something in the post season.  Not like CP3 or Russell don't have great teammates around them.

Making the Finals isn't "accomplishing something"?  Is this that weird line of reasoning where a championship is the only thing that means anything and anything less just means you're tied for biggest loser?

Weird line of reasoning? Are you serious? Who cares who was #2? Making it to the finals means nothing and winning it means everything.

They don't give you rings for making it to the finals. They give you rings for winning the championship.

Agreed. The Cs hang only one type of banner in the Garden -- championships.

Yawn.

If that's the case, then Rondo's been the best player on teams that haven't won championships, and we should trade him as soon as possible because we're clearly not winning with him.

Just like we should have traded Pierce after he made a mockery of the Celtics Franchise after storming off the court in that Pacers loss. The guy was immature. didn't get it, wasn't a "true Celtic" and complained to the media about how he was a great player on a bad team. Selfish chucker who didn't make his teammates better, am I right?
 Career loser who wasn't going to really accomplish anything.
















Oh. Wait.

Yes, at that time you could say that about him.

[D.o.s.]

[Onslaught]

At that very time he was being what I'd call "not true celtic." I looked past it however because I knew he had it in him to act like a pro and not a child.

[D.o.s.]

What is 'Hindsight Bias,' Trebek?

[BballTim]

I see more evidence that Bigfoot, or even that the Loch Ness Monster exists, than an NBA scout that believes there are 40 pgs better than Rondo. Even 40 players.

Outside of the obvious hyperbole with the 40 PGs, I agree that Rondo is not one of the first players or even first PGs I'd choose if trying to build a franchise from the ground up.

Still waiting for Chris Paul, Kyrie, John Wall, or Russell Westbrook to actually accomplish something in the post season.  Not like CP3 or Russell don't have great teammates around them.

Making the Finals isn't "accomplishing something"?  Is this that weird line of reasoning where a championship is the only thing that means anything and anything less just means you're tied for biggest loser?

Weird line of reasoning? Are you serious? Who cares who was #2? Making it to the finals means nothing and winning it means everything.

They don't give you rings for making it to the finals. They give you rings for winning the championship.

Agreed. The Cs hang only one type of banner in the Garden -- championships.

Yawn.

If that's the case, then Rondo's been the best player on teams that haven't won championships, and we should trade him as soon as possible because we're clearly not winning with him.

Just like we should have traded Pierce after he made a mockery of the Celtics Franchise after storming off the court in that Pacers loss. The guy was immature. didn't get it, wasn't a "true Celtic" and complained to the media about how he was a great player on a bad team. Selfish chucker who didn't make his teammates better, am I right?
 Career loser who wasn't going to really accomplish anything.

  That's the tricky part about not having transcendent players. You have to try and weed through the piles of career losers and try and come up with the right combination (and right supporting cast) to build a contender.

[kozlodoev]

I see more evidence that Bigfoot, or even that the Loch Ness Monster exists, than an NBA scout that believes there are 40 pgs better than Rondo. Even 40 players.

Outside of the obvious hyperbole with the 40 PGs, I agree that Rondo is not one of the first players or even first PGs I'd choose if trying to build a franchise from the ground up.

Still waiting for Chris Paul, Kyrie, John Wall, or Russell Westbrook to actually accomplish something in the post season.  Not like CP3 or Russell don't have great teammates around them.

Wesbrook has been to the finals, Paul has typically been on horrible teams. I didn't say I'd pick another PG to carry me to the title all on his own, just that there are several other players I'd prefer to man the PG spot on my team rather than Rondo. Sorry you don't like it.

[D.o.s.]

I see more evidence that Bigfoot, or even that the Loch Ness Monster exists, than an NBA scout that believes there are 40 pgs better than Rondo. Even 40 players.

Outside of the obvious hyperbole with the 40 PGs, I agree that Rondo is not one of the first players or even first PGs I'd choose if trying to build a franchise from the ground up.

Still waiting for Chris Paul, Kyrie, John Wall, or Russell Westbrook to actually accomplish something in the post season.  Not like CP3 or Russell don't have great teammates around them.

Making the Finals isn't "accomplishing something"?  Is this that weird line of reasoning where a championship is the only thing that means anything and anything less just means you're tied for biggest loser?

Weird line of reasoning? Are you serious? Who cares who was #2? Making it to the finals means nothing and winning it means everything.

They don't give you rings for making it to the finals. They give you rings for winning the championship.

Agreed. The Cs hang only one type of banner in the Garden -- championships.

Yawn.

If that's the case, then Rondo's been the best player on teams that haven't won championships, and we should trade him as soon as possible because we're clearly not winning with him.

Just like we should have traded Pierce after he made a mockery of the Celtics Franchise after storming off the court in that Pacers loss. The guy was immature. didn't get it, wasn't a "true Celtic" and complained to the media about how he was a great player on a bad team. Selfish chucker who didn't make his teammates better, am I right?
 Career loser who wasn't going to really accomplish anything.

  That's the tricky part about not having transcendent players. You have to try and weed through the piles of career losers and try and come up with the right combination (and right supporting cast) to build a contender.