I couldn't be happier to see Rondo house us tonight.
I cannot sufficiently verbalize how frustrated I am when I see junk like this.
Junk?
I'd call it "a frustrated fan that hated to see Rondo gone, for as little as we got back, or gone, period".
Not junk.
So if it was Anti-Rondo then you'd approve?
No.
I'm wondering how you rationalized that conclusion. Stop generalizing those who don't drool over Rondo.
Yep. You can either love Rondo and defend him until your death, or you can hate everything he does. Apparently the slightest bit of Rondo criticism puts you into the latter camp.
..while the slightest disagreement with a criticism (no matter how ridiculous) puts you in the former camp. Welcome to the internet.
No no no, let's not mix this up now. A slight disagreement with A Rondo criticism makes you reasonable. A slight disagreement with EVERY Rondo criticism puts you in that camp. On this blog, the Rondo supporters come out in droves to support him no matter what the criticism, fair or not. (Granted, there are Rondo-haters that do the same thing, but they're not nearly as numerous.) It's just frustrating the pedestal that some people put Rondo on in this blog.
So basically, since you feel that your criticisms are fair, people who don't agree with them are "in that camp". Again, welcome to the internet.
Well, logically, if I didn't think my criticisms were fair I wouldn't have them or I would just be trolling. So there's that. But who said anything about MY Robdo criticisms? In the last two days, Tim, I've seen you argue against virtually every Robdo criticism you came across. Don't you think that's just a little fishy and your Rondo fandom is skewing reality a bit?
I haven't read every post in these threads and haven't argued against every criticism I've come across. Just the ones that I happen to see that I don't believe to be accurate. I don't see why that would be any fishier than you making criticisms that you think are fair.Why don't you show me what I've posted that's clearly "skewed"?
1) your argument that playoff/national t.v. Rondo is a misnomer/misconception born out of "people who don't watch him enough"
2) your argument that Rondo didn't lack motivation this season some games and that he brought his best effort/game every time he played (an assertion that even the most ardent Rondo supporter can't support)
3) that leading the league in assists and rebounds as a pg equates to bringing your all every night, even though he routinely passed up open shots for assists, averaged a measly 7ish points a night, and routinely took defensive plays off, didn't fight through screens, and let his man pass him.
There are others, too, but I don't feel like scrolling through page after page of the blog. Of course, you're just going to come back and try to justify these claims with anecdotal evidence or some stat that supports your claim in an indirect way, because the eye test doesn't work with a Rondo-tinted perspective. Such is life at a sports blog.
1) I don't think what I said was overly inaccurate. The whole "nationally televised games" nonsense came from Rondo's great playoff games (which were nationally televised).
2) I never said that. Most of the recent conversations about Rondo's defense, and what I said about that was that it was poor for the first 8-10 games and then fine (in the games that I saw) after that.
3) I never said that leading the league in assists or rebounds as a pg equates to bringing your all every night. Again, my stance on this has always been that no player brings their all every night (at least no regular rotation player) and that claims that other players never take defensive plays off (especially players with big roles on offense) is just hyperbole.
So you've got one fairly accurate claim that I made (although you object to a snarky comment in it) and two that you've made up as your evidence that my views are skewed. Such is life at a sports blog.
Whatever, bro. These have obviously been your arguments the whole time, and you've both explicitly stated these things and implied them in many arguments in the recent past. But there's no sense in us going back and forth with it, because you're just going to deny whatever I say and defend Rondo from any criticism, both fair and unfair, at every turn.
I ask you to point out things I said that were skewed. You come back with some made up claims, and when I point that out they've obviously been my arguments and even if I don't actually say that I "imply" that. So, yes, I'm denying what you say, which is unrelated to denying what I've said. Whatever.
Haha whatever, bro. Everyone knows you irrationally defend Rondo at all costs, so it's cool.
I didn't know this.
Me neither.
I thought that everybody knows that BBallTim often gets in prolonged arguments about Rondo with posters who inevitably resort to the argument of calling Tim a "Rondo fan boy" or other names as a last resort once they give up on using research and intelligence to debate their points.
Maybe not everybody knows this, though.
This holds a lot of weight coming from two of the other "Rondo fan boys," as you so eloquently put it, on this site. You guys are just as bad as the irrational Rondo-haters lol
But, yeah, like I said, what's the point of arguing with you dogmatic people so set in your ways that you're blind to evidence straight from the horse's mouth? I mean, this all came about because Rondo let it slip that he was being lazy on defense and stopped playing that side of the ball the last several seasons (an observation clearly apparent to any reasonable person), and you people manipulate it to protect him! The ignorance to this subjective manipulation is just mind-numbing, and you just blindly rationalize the quote to whatever works best for your agenda.
So, that being said, I'm going to try and end my involvement in this thread for the third time, because there's no point in arguing with people willing to manipulate facts/quotes to fit their perspective of the world.
