And like two seasons ago, we only need our PG to "not mess things up" for us to be a successful team and compete for a championship. We are far and away one of the top-4 teams in the NBA and arguably THE best team with Garnett healthy.......why would you feel we are not in the same class as the Lakers?
As I clearly stated, I dont think the team (excluding Rondo) is as good as it was 2 years ago. Does anyone remember the difference between the 1985-86 Celtics and the 1987-88 Celtics? Even a healthy Garnett will not be as good as he was two years ago, and certainly not as All-World as he was 4-5 years ago on the TWolves. I just don't think this team is the best team in the league without Rondo. But I suppose thats a fair argument to have.
You have a lot to learn about NBA basketball sir if you feel Farmar was the better basketball player than Fisher last season. Why would Phil want his PG to be a turnover machine like Farmar is (3.6 per 36 min after All-Star break), a horrendous shooter like Farmar is (efg% of 45, under 40% post-ASB) and an embarassing FT shooter (58% year, 51% post-ASB) when you can have a reliable player in Fisher who can shoot, doesn't turn the ball over and has more understanding of how to win NBA games in his little finger than Farmer has in his entire body?
And where did I say Farmar was a better player than Fisher? I said Fisher played over Farmar because Phil didnt wan't Farmar to mess up the team. Usually someone who messes up the team isn't very good. Clearly he is far more turnover prone, and shot like crap last year. Farmar might have more upside than Fisher, but he was a worse player last season, and not the right man for the PG spot in LA in 08-09.
Exactly! And this is the fear that many here are stating. They are petrified that we will not have a reliable shooter or someone who cares solely about winning a championship this season. Put Derek Fisher on this Celtics team and we are at ease as you only need the PG not to screw up this Celtics team.
If the Celtics are looking for a PG to start the offense and make open shots, youre right, Rondo isn't the guy for the job. But I am glad you aren't the Celtics GM, as I dont think the Celtics are good enough to win a championship with Derek Fisher, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, and Kendrick Perkins as the starting 5. In 2003-2004 you may have had a dynasty with that squad (well not including Perk who would have been 19 of course), but in 2009-2010 I think you're being overly optimistic. Rondo brings so much value in other ways that are probably not apparent to some casual fans. Danny isn't a fool, and understands the positives Rondo brings to the table. Just because Danny doesn't see him as a max player (and nor do I), it doesn't mean he would trade him for Derek Fisher.
Again, your lack of understanding of the NBA game is becoming evident with statements such as this. Pierce and Garnett are better distributors because they draw double teams and know precisely when to pass out of them (once the defender fully commits to the double) which typically leads to proper ball rotation and an uncontested shot. With Rondo, teams play off his which doesn't allow us to get into our sets as easily at times and nobody is ever going to double him to create opportunities for others.
Im not going to go all nighthob on you, and explain my understanding of the NBA game. But yes, thank you for describing how ball rotation works, and the value of having a good shooting point guard. I seem to remember actually taking this exact position when trying to explain why Jameer Nelson is a valuable point guard. But just because Rondo isn't good at this aspect of the game, it doesnt mean he isn't good. Thats where I think some people are missing the boat. Is Kevin Youkilis bad because he isn't fast? Is Josh Beckett bad because he has a mediocre change-up? Sure, if they were great in every aspect they would be even better, but that doesn't mean they aren't still valuable players.
And yes, Pierce and KG are better at distributing out of double teams. I mean, who is gonna double team Rondo, right? But there is more than one way to distribute and get teammates open shots. When Rondo beats his man, draws help, and kicks out for an open shot that counts as distributing also. In fact, he's better than just about anyone in the league at this. Toward the end of last season, Pierce was having a difficult time beating his man one on one. He was relying on more and more on fade-aways, and therefore not forcing teams to double him as much. Teams also were doubling KG less and less as last year wore on (before his injury) if you were looking closely. Hopefully those 2 will be re-energized this season, but I don't think its fair to ask them to play like theyre 27 years old for 82 games. Theyre not going to be able to generate the double teams or open shots like they did at will in their prime, and thats where Rondo's skills help the team immensely in my mind.
If Rondo plays as an All-Star level it is because our best players are out with injuries and "The Rondo Show" reverts us back to the 2006 season. Our system is not designed for the PG to have "an All-Star level season" with our roster as it stands.
I disgaree that Rondo having an All-Star level performance while our vets play well is mutually exclusive. Rondo playing well includes getting other involved, not just scoring on his own. I think the Big 3 loves the easy shots Rondo can get them as it allows them to expend less energy than going one-on-one all the time. Now if Rondo goes off on his own to get his numbers and starts taking lots of contested jumpers, or is turning the ball over more in an effort to make his own play, Ill be the first one to get upset. But Rondo can be an All Star without doing those things.
If this team goes through the season battling injuries and decline in performance of its star players whatever Rondo does isn't going to matter. This team is designed with Pierce, Garnett and Allen as its 3 key players with the Perkins, Rondos, Wallaces, Daniels and Houses as complimentary pieces........and it is a very delicate mix that NBA chemistry is. I'm not sure why you choose to go plural with "injuries" since the entire team except Tony Allen is very healthy entering camp with the possible exception of Garnett who has also been cleared medically to go from Day One. As Paul Pierce stated last night.......
I just mean that older players in general are more likely to get injured and/or have a decline in performance. These are facts in the NBA. I certainly hope it doesn't happen, but just because Paul Pierce had 2 good days of camp, I don't think the laws of the basketball universe have been altered.
Edited by radsoxfan, 01 October 2009 - 01:05 AM.