BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > Rajon Rondo?

Rajon Rondo? (thread closed)

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
164333.59 in reply to 164333.48
Date: 11/25/2010 1:07:08 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
So you have to make up your mind. Either they suck, and Rondo should be taking more shots and he isn't, or they're good so Rondo's assist average is disproportionate because he's just out there tossing them the ball. Can't have it both ways.

They're effective, absolutely. Pierce can still score on most defenders and is probably the craftiest scorer not named Kobe or Carmelo. Allen is a great shooter off screens. Garnett can post up good defenders, he's just not explosive anymore. And Rondo does do a good job of running the offense. It's not as black and white as you make it seem. Rondo is a fine player, but Westbrook is a better one.

Anyways, the Celtics go through many offensive lulls, which a better Rondo would help with (if he could hit an open jumper confidently, or if he used his driving ability to draw fouls more often, he'd power them through slumps, like Westbrook does with the Thunder). They're great because of defense.

Or maybe it will be exactly the other way around, since Rondo can get to the basket at will, and Westbrook doesn't know how not to play me-ball. Fact is, we'll never know since this is unlikely to be empirically tested.

What the hell is "me-ball"? I thought I was arguing with someone who was beyond tired cliches. Westbrook is as selfish as the sky is red. He does what he is asked to do, and he does it admirably.

Paul Pierce is a NBA champion, a finals MVP, and one of the most clutch players in the league. King and Aguire may have to wait, but Pierce is going in.

You may be right - because sportswriters have a very dulled out vision of the world, don't they? King didn't have the fortune of playing on a great team, but he's one of the best scorers in history. The greatest accolade is the observation upon watching a player that, holy shit, he is amazingly good. Pierce has always been very good, but his "legacy" is what it is because he happened to win a championship on a great team and a storied franchise that today's sportswriters grew up worshiping. All this while King was playing with Micheal Ray Richardson et. al. and if you think anyone with the simplified results-oriented views of your average sportswriter would root for them over the Great White Hope himself - then you aren't familiar with how we worship our heroes here in America.

This Post:
00
164333.60 in reply to 164333.52
Date: 11/25/2010 1:08:57 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
Steve Nash is a lock for the HOF, no idea how one concludes he has a 37% chance of making it.

This Post:
00
164333.61 in reply to 164333.53
Date: 11/25/2010 1:09:31 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
I'm actually really enjoying the discussion going on here and it makes me wish I could actually watch basketball games on tv here in holland.

Try atdhe.net

This Post:
00
164333.62 in reply to 164333.60
Date: 11/25/2010 8:00:45 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
209209
Well he's one of the very few players who got back-to-back MVP, no? On the other end, he never lead his team to the NBA finals..

"Air is beautiful, yet you cannot see it. It's soft, yet you cannot touch it. Air is a little like my brain." - Jean-Claude Van Damme
This Post:
00
164333.63 in reply to 164333.62
Date: 11/25/2010 10:14:17 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
192192
Don't care if he "led his team to the NBA Finals." Name me one better all-around offensive PG in history (I'm talking court vision combined with shooting/scoring). Eh, I guess it's possible if you consider athleticism, but Nash is the best pass/shoot double threat in history, I think.

This Post:
00
164333.64 in reply to 164333.63
Date: 11/26/2010 4:21:58 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
204204
John Stockton would like to have a word with you ;).

I'm not saying Stockton was necessarily the better offensive PG. However, I think the difference between the two on the offensive end is very small. Nash is the better scorer, while Stockton was the better passer; but overall, they were at about the same strength.

Also, Magic Johnson ca. 1988-1991 averaged 20PPG and 12APG with a .35 3FG%, so he might have a word in that discussion, too.

Nash is the best offensive PG of our time though, that's for sure.

This Post:
00
164333.65 in reply to 164333.64
Date: 11/26/2010 5:20:17 AM
Koopasaurus
II.4
Overall Posts Rated:
299299
Stockton is great no doubt about that, but Nash never had the pleasure to have a guy like Karl Malone around to dish the ball to.

Magic Johnson is just in a different class, hes like top 5 of all time (not Kobe, like what Charles Barkley said on TNT LOL)

This Post:
00
164333.67 in reply to 164333.5
Date: 11/26/2010 9:56:01 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
i was wishing to create someone like steve nash...............

This Post:
00
164333.68 in reply to 164333.67
Date: 11/26/2010 11:57:15 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1010
Passing. Lots of passing. I'm going to arbitrarily give him BB skill levels which other more informed users could correct.

Jump Shot: tremendous Jump Range: sensational
Outside Def.: proficient Handling:tremendous
Driving: wondrous Passing: marvelous
Inside Shot: prominent Inside Def.: mediocre
Rebounding: proficient Shot Blocking: mediocre
Stamina:prominent Free Throw: phenomenal

This Post:
00
164333.69 in reply to 164333.68
Date: 11/27/2010 9:51:45 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
2121
I think it'd be more like this:

JS:18 JR:16
OD:11 HD:18
DR:18 PA:20
IS:7 ID:3
RB:4 SB:2
ST:8 FT:15

Advertisement