Celtics CLEARLY better without Rondo

Views:      
 
 
-

Celtics CLEARLY better without Rondo

February 7, 2013 6:07 pm

All others WISH they had it like us.

The only one who cares is you.  No one outside the internet here in the Chicago/NW Indiana are ever talk about Boston's teams. Bottom line, if Brady wants to be known as the best ever, he needs to win another one.  Going 8-9 years without winning one won't cut it.  And really, how much did the guys around him have to do with the three Super Bowls he won earlier in his career?  Great QB in his own right, but he isn't the best ever.


and as I said, Sox are always able to dip into that pouch of cash and sign players.
Really, the only team that has worked for is the Yankees.  The Dodgers are currently in the midst of an asinine spending spree.  It won't work.
HurricaneDij39
SinceAug 12, 2007
-

Celtics CLEARLY better without Rondo

February 7, 2013 11:29 pm

Celtics have one title in the last 26 years, patriots won a title 8 years ago, red sox won 2 of the first time since 1919. not much of a hockey fan.  true every team has been in contention last 5 or 6 years, but not like titles keep popping out left and right. celts and pats are done for a while
whiterhino357
SinceFeb 2, 2013
-

Celtics CLEARLY better without Rondo

February 8, 2013 12:30 am

What's the worst that happens to Brady? He finishes as the third best ever? What a disaster. Reality is with three rings he's already in the running for best ever. All the stats and yards are just gravy. Already owns the record for playoff wins. He's got a few years to win one more ring. He does that and the discussion for greatest ever starts and ends with him. 

wildcatsfan1
SinceJan 20, 2007
-

Celtics CLEARLY better without Rondo

February 8, 2013 12:31 am

2001, 2003, 2004 (2x), 2007 (2x), 2008, 2011. Yea...you're right, we haven't popped titles off regularly. Not at all. 

wildcatsfan1
SinceJan 20, 2007
-

Celtics CLEARLY better without Rondo

February 8, 2013 12:47 am

What's there to counter?  All tfitz and Zags did was make a groundless claim that Rose can never lead a team to a championship in spite of the fact he's only been in the league five years.  



So any player who has been in the league less than five years we cannot say that the guy will never be the best player on a team that wins a title eh?  We can't say this about Kent Bazemore just yet....or Patrick Patterson...or E'Twaun Moore... or Tyler Zeller ... or of course Derrick Rose.

But all sarcasm aside, as far as "groundless claim" ground has been provided.  The guy is athletic but somewhat inefficient.  Not a great defender and a good but not great A/TO guy.  He is a volume scorer that is good enough to take his team to playoff victories in his career over a 37 win team and a 44 win team and that's it.  Then as soon as he plays a team that is good he shoots 35% and gets owned by the best guy on that team in a 5 game series.  He would not need to just improve in the typical incremental nature that most players improve to all of a sudden be the best guy on a championship team based on that---he would need to improve astronomically.

Is this objective evidence above or just "irrational hate"?  And better yet do you really think I "hate Derrick Rose".  I am not like you dude.  I do not hate things and people like that.  I just observe what I see and look at objective evidence and form an opinion.  If Rose ends up being the best guy on a title team, more power to him.  I will be happy for the guy and stand corrected.  I just don't see it happening.  Is that okay with you or are you just going to keep calling me a hater while frothing at the mouth?


Anyway, dude, I will ask you the same "Yes" or "No" question I asked Lakersrule.  It is not a "Can" question, it is a "Will" question.  Pretend like it actually means something like you are betting 10,000 dollars on it.  Will Derrick Rose ever be the best player on a team that wins the title?  You have two choices--"Yes" or "No".  My answer is "no."  And I don't have any "ifs, ands, or buts" in my answer.  Will you?

 
Zagstuh
SinceDec 12, 2006
-

Celtics CLEARLY better without Rondo

February 9, 2013 11:45 am

HurricaneDij39: Of course this thread, is only meant to rile all true NBA fans. Rondo a scrub?? That the reason most GMs in the NBA would ransom their best players to secure his skills.If he lacks anything, its maturity. But he is top PG in the NBA, and that jack is a fact As for the Ce;ltics winning the NBA Title this season, they have chance as any other playoff contender, but a sure edge with Rondo in the lineup, matched with Bradley..best guard tandem playing today..Go Big Green!!!
superlion
SinceMar 6, 2008
-

Celtics CLEARLY better without Rondo

February 9, 2013 12:02 pm


What's the worst that happens to Brady? He finishes as the third best ever? What a disaster. Reality is with three rings he's already in the running for best ever. All the stats and yards are just gravy. Already owns the record for playoff wins. He's got a few years to win one more ring. He does that and the discussion for greatest ever starts and ends with him.
Again, going 8-9 years in the prime of your career without winning one isn't a recipe for being the greatest ever.  He's just as big a choke as Peyton Manning, and at least Peyton has a title in that time span.


2001, 2003, 2004 (2x), 2007 (2x), 2008, 2011. Yea...you're right, we haven't popped titles off regularly. Not at all.
You just pointed it out yourself - Only one in the last five years, and that's the Bruins.

So any player who has been in the league less than five years we cannot say that the guy will never be the best player on a team that wins a title eh?  We can't say this about Kent Bazemore just yet....or Patrick Patterson...or E'Twaun Moore... or Tyler Zeller ... or of course Derrick Rose.
Have Bazemore, Patterson, Moore, or Zeller ever lead their team in both scoring and assists on a 61-win team?  Claiming that he "definitely" can't lead a team to a title sounds like pure hate and that you're being influenced by someone else.  Rose has the right attitude, so give the kid a chance.  He might not be the team's undisputed best player when he comes back this season, but at the same time, neither was Chris Paul when he came back from his knee surgery in 2010.

HurricaneDij39: Of course this thread, is only meant to rile all true NBA fans. Rondo a scrub??
Obviously you haven't been around this board long enough.  Of course it's sarcasm.

Celtics have won six in a row without Rondo!!!  Overrated.
HurricaneDij39
SinceAug 12, 2007
-

Celtics CLEARLY better without Rondo

February 9, 2013 1:53 pm

Cane, what is 2-Time's on the board?  Good luck in waivers!  Word.
RockDaCrotch
SinceJun 23, 2009
-

Celtics CLEARLY better without Rondo

February 9, 2013 7:13 pm

Cane, what is 2-Time's on the board?  Good luck in waivers!  Word.
That would be Scyte & Hammer.  He's on my favorites list.  But for how long?

Anyone else here notice that the only thing WCF has brought to the table in this thread is "My city has the most titles, so I'm always right" or "I've been engaging with the people you've stalked".

So fresh in his trash talking.
HurricaneDij39
SinceAug 12, 2007
-

Celtics CLEARLY better without Rondo

February 9, 2013 7:17 pm

...And I guess everyone with Asperger's Syndrome takes pills according to Dr. Bryan Doherty.  LOL
HurricaneDij39
SinceAug 12, 2007
-

Celtics CLEARLY better without Rondo

February 9, 2013 9:00 pm

And all you do is brag about beating up your father and challenge people to fight LOL maybe you should get back on your meds son.
piss-tons
SinceApr 16, 2008
-

Celtics CLEARLY better without Rondo

February 10, 2013 2:23 am

So any player who has been in the league less than five years we cannot say that the guy will never be the best player on a team that wins a title eh?  We can't say this about Kent Bazemorejust yet....or Patrick Patterson...or E'Twaun Moore... or Tyler Zeller ... or of course Derrick Rose.
Have Bazemore, Patterson, Moore, or Zeller ever lead their team in both scoring and assists on a 61-win team? 





No they haven't.  That is probably why right after I stated all that I said the following to start my next paragraph (which you didn't quote)...


But all sarcasm aside,

It is quite telling that the only thing I brought up that you responded to was the part of my post that I fully admitted as being sarcasm and ignored the rest of the serious points I made in my post on the subject.


Claiming that he "definitely" can't lead a team to a title sounds like pure hate and that you're being influenced by someone else.

 

I suppose it does.  It is a good thing I never used that term.  How about not putting quotes around a word that was never used?  

More projection from you too.  The only person influeced by someone else is you.  You are influenced by people you hate.  It consumes you.  It is part hilarious and part sad.


Rose has the right attitude, so give the kid a chance. 



Okay.  I did not realize I wasn't giving him a chance.
Zagstuh
SinceDec 12, 2006
-

Celtics CLEARLY better without Rondo

March 7, 2013 4:45 pm

HurricaneDij39: There is no doubt, is this longtime Celtic's fan (Russell) era, Rondo is the spark that will push the Celts to more rings, despite the teams Old Tag, The Celtics with vets: Pierce and KG remain the burr under the saddle of the Heat dominating the East..not The Bulls or Pacers So the fact ..also remains, as they won title in 2008, the Celtics and the Lakers still only Elete teams in the NBA.oops  did forget the Knicks..but current team,I would be shocked if they get to the finals.Go Big Green!!! 
superlion
SinceMar 6, 2008