Rondo Is A Square Peg Thriving In A Round Hole (Usually)

PRETTY GOOD ARTICLE AND SUMMATION ON WHAT TO DO WITH RONDO

by Jeff Clark on Feb 13, 2012 6:33 AM EST in Boston Celtics Articles

What would an unbridled Rondo do?
Rajon Rondo is not your average point guard. This much is a given. In fact, that might be the only definitive thing I can say about him at this point.

He's a great passer but he sometimes looks to pass to a fault. He can be an elite defender but he gambles too much. He's a poor shooter but he'll still take a shot from time to time. He's incredibly bright by all accounts, but also terribly stubborn. He has a stoic face but you can see the fire in him. He's utterly fearless and plays through pain, yet he sometimes slacks off and may have too thin of a skin for his own good.

To me, these are the reasons why Rondo is becoming the most polarizing player for fans. He's either totally mesmerizing or completely infuriating, sometimes in the same game.

If, like me, you focus on the positives, you'll see a 2 time All Star pass-first point guard with triple double potential who has proven that he can take his game to the highest levels when it matters most. On the other hand, if you choose to focus on the negative, you'll see an inconsistent, moody, potentially fatally flawed enigma of a player that may not be worth building around. Neither opinion is wrong or right, they are opinions.



Here's the thing that keeps me coming back for more and makes me want to sign up for at least a few more years of Rondo after this year. He's never been in a situation at the pro level tailor made to accentuate his talents. Sure, as a pass first guy he's blessed with 3 Hall of Famers to pass to, but they do almost all their work in the half court. As you may have heard, Rondo's lack of jumper creates a sagging defense that dares him to shoot at the expense of other guys getting open.

Rondo needs to run but he doesn't have the horses to gallop with. He's a young black stallion that has grown up hitched to a team of clydesdales. He gets the job done, but you get the feeling that if he was ever unbridled he'd be something incredible to behold.

I'm not saying that we need to blow this thing up now. But when the season is over, I'd like Danny to think long and hard about bringing in some runners and gunners (who are willing to play a little defense as well). Imagine an athletic big man pulling down a board, outlletting to Rondo, who pushes the ball down the defenses throat and leaves the ball off for one of two streaking wing players who finishes with a flush. Or perhaps the next time down he draws the defenders to himself but kicks it out beyond the arc for an open look at the 3. This happens in dribs and drabs with this group (see the back to back alley-oops to JJJ and Wilcox), but not often enough to utilize Rondo's talent.

He'll need to be surrounded by shooters that can get open without having the ball in their hands (a reason to keep Ray Allen around for as long as is fiscally possible). He'll also need some bigs to bang and board down low. Imagine a Varejao type roaming the paint, gobbling up missed Rondo jumpers and putting them back for scores. It would be like a modified assist.

It wouldn't be easy, but it could certainly be done. Danny would have to stop dangling Rondo in trades and start making a concerted effort to build around the guy. That might mean taking a pass on the "best player available" in free agency or the draft if that guy was a bad fit.

Of course you could determine that it isn't worth building a whole team around one enigmatic player. Maybe it would be easier with a "normal" point guard and a more traditional offense. But what would be the fun in that? Personally I'm all in on Rondo. I want to see him retire a Celtic if possible. On the other hand, I get it if you have reservations and wouldn't mind "selling high" on him right now. He's just a different kind of guy and he's not for everyone.

Still, I would argue that his uniqueness is what makes him so special. You don't get rid of a Monet because it doesn't match your furniture. You buy new furniture and look to add more Monets to compliment it. At least that's what I'd do if I were a filthy rich art collector. Danny's going to have a lot of money to spend this summer. Here's hoping that he spends it like a filthy rich art collector.

112288

Rondo needs to get over his "moody" -play hard when it suits him attitude if he truly wants to take his game to an elite level.

He showed up yesterday and played hard. He made a few mistakes, but no big deal - he was on his game.

On Friday Night, he was disinterested and on Thursday against the Lakers, it was a tale of two halves. He ran the ball down the Lakers throat in the first half...and then did nothing in the second.

If he wants to have DA build around him...he need to grow up, stop acting like a child, and play hard EVERY night. Otherwise, they should ship him out and get what they can for him.

Mrkleen,

Well stated!

112288

mrkleen09 wrote:Rondo needs to get over his "moody" -play hard when it suits him attitude if he truly wants to take his game to an elite level.

He showed up yesterday and played hard. He made a few mistakes, but no big deal - he was on his game.

On Friday Night, he was disinterested and on Thursday against the Lakers, it was a tale of two halves. He ran the ball down the Lakers throat in the first half...and then did nothing in the second.

If he wants to have DA build around him...he need to grow up, stop acting like a child, and play hard EVERY night. Otherwise, they should ship him out and get what they can for him.

agreed, hes got so much talent, he should be able to drive and create at crunchtime too, so sick of seeing him dribble at top of key and hold on to ball as seconds slip away before a boneheaded shot that has no chance.

I've been as frustrated by some of Rondo's "spells" this season. But I really do think his potential ball distribution skills in the open court and his defensive contributions merit at least one season of trying it the run-and-gun way. One side benefit of having some young speedsters as his mates is the reduced likelihood that they'll be injured so much as to threaten one of my favorite words—continuity. To some degree, a good transition game (ignited by great defense and at least reasonable rebounding prowess) can overcome a lack of halfcourt ballhandling finesse. Opponents wear down more easily. There are just lots of potential benefits. Transition is his forte. After this season, it almost must be given an opportunity. (I can't wait.)

Sam

The team long term has to tailored to Rondo's strengths. The more easy baskets this team and Celtic teams in the coming years post Garnett, Pierce & Allen are able to score the better. You are to utilize your strong points while working to improve other aspects that need fine tuning to become a well rounded team, or a well Rondo-ed team. (LOL)

MD!

MD,

Agreed that easy baskets are really important. Almost throughout the KG era, I've had the feeling that the offense had to work to hard and make too many great shots to remain competitive.

Equally important, from my point of view, are at least three other benefits of transition basketball. One benefit is its simplicity. Compared with half court basketball (which, of course, all teams also have to master at least to a reasonable degree because they can't run all the time), transition ball is easier to adapt to For young players or players new to the team in particular, there are fewer niceties to learn in transition ball; therefore, transition chemistry usually emerges more quickly than halfcourt chemistry.

Another benefit is debilitation of the opponent. Yes, both teams are running in transition ball. But the offensive team is primarily running forward and has better anticipation of where it's headed. The defensive team is often running and cutting backwards, with much more energy required to make the quick lunges required to keep up with unexpected offensive moves. After several years in which there have been concerns about the Celtics' resilience, it would be nice to be on the other side of the coin for a while.

A third benefit is that, even if a fast break comes up empty, there's a better chance of coming up with an offensive rebound because the opponent is often not yet in good defensive position.

Perhaps the ultimate in a transition game is when a team streaks down and scores after a made basket by the opponent. That can be an incredibly demoralizing factor for the opponents and can even make the opponents tentative in running their own offense.

And, of course, there's nothing like good transition ball to whip the crowd into a frenzy at home games, subdue the home fans in away games, and thrill those watching or listening away from the stadium.
d
Sam

Back in the early championship years, Tommy Heinsohn noted in his book "Giv'em
The Hoop" that the Celtics were a run and gun team. He did not get the nickname "Ack Ack" for nothing. Red's strategy was to out shoot their opponents by a wide margin. His theory is very simple: if your opponent takes the majority of the clock looking for the best shot and shoots 50% with 80 shots that's 40 baskets. If the Celtics on the other hand take 100 shots and shoot 40%, that's 40 baskets. The other team over works and with good defense becomes demoralized! That is why Tommy never pays close attention to percentages. He also looks at the number of shots taken by each team.

112288

112288,

Yes, I've read that those Celtics had a pretty decent fast break.

Sam

Sam,

You are so naughty! But for those youngsters out there, it is an interesting slant on how Celtic ball was played. Not so much the idea of the fast break, but the strategy of taking as many shots as possible and out shooting the other team without worrying about shooting percentages. Today everyone looks at shooting percentage to determine how good a player is.

112288

112288,

It's what I call "volume basketball." Actually, the entire system involved volume in one sense or another. Bring the ball up at a high rate of speed; shoot early and (when necessary) often in the shot clock; move both the ball and the personnel rapidly and incessantly in the halfcourt game; gang bang the boards; swarm (man to man) and trap on defense; toss in a periodic full court press in big games; dominate the pace of the game; and, when you sense that the opponents are fading, step on the throttle some more. Practically nothing in moderation (except perhaps not rushing free throws).

As I've said many times, Andre Agassi was the tennis player I most enjoyed watching. A big part of the reason was the quality of his strategizing in order to gain the upper hand; and, once he gained it, he NEVER let up. The more exhausting the match was, the more he'd be likely to sprint to the bench during changeovers as his opponent typically slouched along. Just as the Celtics seldom sat during timeouts while other teams usually did.

Take no quarter. Leave no opening. Availability of the right personnel and depth permitting, I believe this combination of ingredients came as close as possible to the perfect formula for playing winning basketball in any era.

Sam

Sam'

Does Rafael Nadal remind you of Agassi in his approach to the sport of tennis?

MD!

Interesting question, MD. I know that Nadal has often come from behind, sometimes spectacularly. I tend to think he does it more by summoning a higher level of athleticism whereas Andre was just a master strategist. Except for his conditioning (hmmm, reminds me of a certain old basketball team), I don't think Andre would ever have been described as the "freak of nature" that Andre, himself, has used to describe Nadal.

If there's any truth to what I say about summoning the higher level of athleticism, it will be interesting to see how Nadal's boty responds to those demands over time.

I'm probably a poor person to ask this question. Frankly, my interest in watching professional tennis has waned considerably since Andre quit. I can't help it, as I will always be a fan rather than a spectator. I need to be heavily invested in someone out there to be really into the match. The two guys I have really followed (Connors and Agassi) both had long careers. Now I happen to be without an object of passionate support.

Sam