Parker is not a better playmaker sir
how about a big stat.
2 assists isnt that much of a difference.
i know but if he was forced to shoot more that would happen.
and actually thats 6.9 assists for Parker.
They have different roles...
Rondo is not asked to score like Parker, Rondo could score if he wanted to, but because of teh vets on the team, he is asked to distribute more instead of score.
Rondo completely took over the Bulls series, which I feel he could do more often if he is asked to.
If Rondo is still a Celtic in a few years when Allen, Pierce, and Garnett are older and possibly retired,
Rondo will have huge numbers, because he will be asked to do more.
If Rondo played on a different team, He could average 20 ppg.
you can say the Spurs have vets too.
those are three gooid vetarens but he stwill probably score more than any of those.
Gator, R-Dot....its pointless
Bird has a bias against Rondo. All you care about is scoring and if Rondo had to he would score more but you dont care....you still dont like him.
wait how is harris (who is a allstar) behind rondo?..that makes no sense
haha your the one whos bias theres no way hes better than Parker at least right now Parker is easily the the thrird best point guard in the league and if the Celtics could get Parker they would be unstopable Parker and Kg on the pik & roll.
i know some of these people are bias towards Rondo. (even said hes better than Parker).
Im not Bias against anyone, you keep going back everytime I say something about a guy you go back to scoring....every time.
Rondo does not score alot...we get it. But he is valuable to that team and without him, i dont see BOS winning a title
Harris to me, is a good player on a bad team.
He is a bad shooter and a average playmaker and a ok defender from the games i have seen.
hes valuable to them but Parker is the second most valuable player to the Spurs behind Duncan, while Rondo is the fourth they cant afford to lose Garnett, Pierce, or Allen.
The Celtics can lose Allen and still win a title. I think Rondo is the 3rd overall option.
True, but I think if Parker went down, the Spurs would have Manu and another Hill spilt time at PG. Rondo goes down...you go to Lester Hudson and you lost a chance at a title
Eddie House would start and theres no way Hill can lead a team id take House over him, and also if you lose Allen you lose his clutch shooting which hurts down the road.
gatorheels..how low is sessions in youre eyes since he shoots 19 percent
But House is not in Rondo's league sir...at all.
Allen and clutch shooting....no. He can shoot be his not the old Ray Allen, he is not that clutch.
theres alot of good players on bad teams..they still are good players...also rose shot22percent from three..is he lower in youre eyes gator....so the same excuse can be made for a ok to good pg thats surrounded by good to great talent if you penalize a player for being on a bad team
what about the two game winners last playoffs? and Hill is a much bigger dropoff than to House, House cant play defense but he will score, and Hill nowhere near in Parkers league.
funny how noone says Rose is not a good shooter
3pt shooting isn't everything
Its a tough decesion for me between Rondo, Harris, & Nelson to be honest. I would give Rondo the slight edge because I like his length, ball handling, & defense. Like I've said earlier there isn't a wrong choice between the 3 really. Just depends on what main skills you want your PG to have. AS for Sessions I like his game...he isn't too far behind these 3. It really depends where Sessions goes....with more playing time in a system that fits him he should be able to get on the other top PGs in the East level pretty easily I would think.
hes not a good shooter but hes a decent shooter atleast.
hes not a good shooter but hes a decent shooter atleast.
your a hypocrite...Rondo shootes 50% from the field and 31% from 3...he's a bad shooter
Rose shot 22% from 3...he's a decent shooter
thats because Rondo doesnt shoot as much.
if the spurs lose parker thats a very very big deal..they have no replacement for him
If the Celtics lose Rondo....its a big deal too. You lose the guy who runs your Offense
Parker runs the offense through the pick % roll which is nearly unstopable and if he went down they would lose that whgich would hurt badly.
I know that...but im gonna repeat myself
If the Celtics lose Rondo....its a big deal TOO. You lose the guy who runs your Offense
if you lose Parker you lose you point guard and leading scorer and pick & roll operator and playmaker.
i never said that what u said was wrong...again
If you lose Rondo, Lester Hudson is the starter.
I like Lester, but he is not ready to start yet.
actually House woul start.
and whos better House or Rondo?
Better yea who would you take House or Rondo
of course Rondo is better but the Celtics would still have a shot without him while im not even sure the Spurs would make the playoffs without him.
....The Celtics would not win a title without Rondo
they would have a good shot i mean they took the the Magic to seven games without their best player and leader Garnett, so they would do betterwithout Rondo, than without Garnett.
They most likely would not win it all w/o Rondo, but if Harris was there pg instead they would still win it all IMO.
They would not win it all without Rondo..
House wouldnt be able to come in and play the minutes Rondo does effectively, and he is where he belongs, in the role he has.
I feel like Hudson would get more minutes if Rondo went down.
they would have a better shot than last year.
Were talking this year.
Rondo out for the season = no title in Boston
might be they still have a shot though but if the Spurs lose Parker for the season they wont be more than a seven or eight seed at best.
No way they would have a better shot, with Garnett out, atleast they have Big Baby to fill in, and he played great IMO.
Rondo Out... Lakers Repeat.
they would have a better shot Garnett is their leader, best defender, best plsyer they will have a shot as long as hes plsying.