A lot of our fellow C's argue than Rondo is not even a top-10 (or is a fringe top-10) in his position. Personally I disagree, but I'd like to hear what they have to say and most of all on what they base their assessment.
To make devil's advocate, I open this thread by making RR's case:
-He won a championship in his rookie year.
-He is an excellent passer and penetrator.
-Has great court vision.
-He is unselfish (great asset for a PG)
-Despite being a below average 3pt shooter he is a good mid-range shooter.
IMO they are very few people who are beyond dispute better than RR and even with them and our judgment should take into consideration who they play with (meaning that RR might fit better some teams than even some of the other theoretically best and vice versa)
Chris Paul, Tony Parker, Stephen Curry and a healthy Derick Rose. For the sake of the argument, I accept Westbrook too, although he is IMO a bad decision maker under pressure.
But I think, it is only fair to say RR is at least at the same as league as Kyrie, Lillard and Wall, young talented studs with great athleticism, but who have not proved themselves yet in the playoffs (and are surrounded by a better roster).
I think what drives the RR criticism is not really true concern about RR's value but disappointment with the post Big 3 era. This is understandable, but does not really help the team nor does it lead to meaningful debate.
So, let's hear the other side now, why do you think RR is not an elite PG? What skills does he miss and what does he do wrong?