Rondo dissing on CP3?

[Force]

Kendrick Perkins told Chris Mannix of SI that Rajon Rondo said "Chris Paul has the stats that he has because he has the ball in his hands all game."

 

http://hornetshype.com/wp/2009/10/31/and-tonight-in-the-role-of-rafer-alston-we-have-rajon-rondo/

 

There's def. some beef between those two; they got a double tech last night, and there had to be a reason Paul was trying to get into the Celtics' locker room lol.

 

Thoughts?

[EastCoastNiner]

http://hornetshype.com/wp/2009/10/31/and-tonight-in-the-role-of-rafer-alston-we-have-rajon-rondo/

 

There's def. some beef between those two; they got a double tech last night, and there had to be a reason Paul was trying to get into the Celtics' locker room lol.

 

Thoughts?

 

Chris Paul's a little [expletive], and he's not the best PG in the NBA

 

Deron Williams>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>CP3, and sooner than later, Rajon Rondo will be better than the D12 of PG's, a pat stadding fool.

[Real Deal]

What Rajon "My Common Sense is Zero" Rondo doesn't understand is that CP3 also gets all the defensive attention. Pierce, Garnett and Ray get more attention than Rajon. There's a reason why teams leave him open for 18 footers.

[kingfish]

Rondo is kinda right. CP3 holds the ball 99 % of the game. A lot of times he just passes to a guy on the perimeter hoping they will shoot it for an assist, if they dont shoot it CP3 runs right to them to get the ball back. Basically he has the green light all game to just find guys for spot up shots, and if they dont shoot it ball goes right back to Paul.

 

Rondo wouldnt be as good as Paul even if he didnt have HOF teammates to share with, Rondo is not nearly the scorer Paul is. He could dish 10+ assists though if he held the ball 99% of the time like CP3.

[PapaDoink]

Rondo is kinda right. CP3 holds the ball 99 % of the game. A lot of times he just passes to a guy on the perimeter hoping they will shoot it for an assist, if they dont shoot it CP3 runs right to them to get the ball back. Basically he has the green light all game to just find guys for spot up shots, and if they dont shoot it ball goes right back to Paul.

 

Rondo wouldnt be as good as Paul even if he didnt have HOF teammates to share with, Rondo is not nearly the scorer Paul is. He could dish 10+ assists though if he held the ball 99% of the time like CP3.

Rondo doesn't pull of the passes and doesn't see the lanes as well as CP3 though.

[Klashnekoff]

Wow. You cannot be serious that Deron or Rondo is better then Chris Paul. That is just ... so stupid ..

 

Rondo may not have the ball in his hands as much as Chris because he isn't a star player, no not even a all-star. Once you reach that level kiddo then start talkin smack. When you haven't done nothing but ride with 3 nba legends to a championship then you shouldn't talk about the elite in the league.

 

Chris is years, leaps and bounds better then Rondo, i could pick out at least 5 different traits from Chris game that are superior to Rondos. Including defense and passing. Not to mention scoring, leadership, mentality and the ability to actually be coached.

 

Rondo really annoys me at times, i try to give this guy a chance cause i do like his game (i like any point guard really) however this guy is just too cocky. People say Brandon Jennings is cocky but he doesn't go out and disrespect people that he knows are better then him like that. It's just a shot at Chris game, pretty much saying he isn't that good because he has the ball in his hands a lot. Either way you want to interpret that but it comes down to him saying he isn't that good when he is that good ..

[Ramiel]

Wow. You cannot be serious that Deron or Rondo is better then Chris Paul. That is just ... so stupid ..

 

Rondo may not have the ball in his hands as much as Chris because he isn't a star player, no not even a all-star. Once you reach that level kiddo then start talkin smack. When you haven't done nothing but ride with 3 nba legends to a championship then you shouldn't talk about the elite in the league.

 

Chris is years, leaps and bounds better then Rondo, i could pick out at least 5 different traits from Chris game that are superior to Rondos. Including defense and passing. Not to mention scoring, leadership, mentality and the ability to actually be coached.

 

Rondo really annoys me at times, i try to give this guy a chance cause i do like his game (i like any point guard really) however this guy is just too cocky. People say Brandon Jennings is cocky but he doesn't go out and disrespect people that he knows are better then him like that. It's just a shot at Chris game, pretty much saying he isn't that good because he has the ball in his hands a lot. Either way you want to interpret that but it comes down to him saying he isn't that good when he is that good ..

 

Just asking. Why are you saying you? He isn't here. I think I know why, but I want to know.

 

 

Chris isn't all that great, nor is Rondo. They're both cocky.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Suzaku

[Flash]

 

 

Chris isn't all the great

 

 

I've heard it all...Chris Paul isn't all that great? lol ok.

[kingfish]

I've heard it all...Chris Paul isn't all that great? lol ok.

He said the great, not "that great." Check your spellin brah.

[Flash]

He said the great, not "that great." Check your spellin brah.

 

Tell me wise sir, what does "All the great mean"?

[Ramiel]

Chris isn't all that great, nor is Rondo. They're both cocky.

 

I also said Rondo as well. If your going to quote someone don't take the meat of the post out.

[Real Deal]

If Chris isn't that great of a point guard, I guess nobody in the league at that position is...unless by great we're talking over a career, and then we bring in Jason Kidd.

 

Paul and Deron are the two best point guards in the NBA, hands down, and Parker is behind them...but other than that, everyone else is trailing and eating their dust.

[Poe]

^ What about Gilbert Arenas and Steve Nash? I think Nash is still probably the best offensive PG in the league, and Arenas is proving to be the same dangerous scorer that he was a few years ago.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Poe

[Real Deal]

I can't put Nash or Arenas in front of Tony Parker. TP has led the Spurs in the postseason and into the Finals, with a championship, and he's easily the better scoring point out of him and Nash, and he plays better defense (and most do over Nash). I'll stick Arenas somewhere into a top 10 list when he plays half a season.

[Poe]

I can't put Nash or Arenas in front of Tony Parker. TP has led the Spurs in the postseason and into the Finals, with a championship, and he's easily the better scoring point out of him and Nash, and he plays better defense (and most do over Nash). I'll stick Arenas somewhere into a top 10 list when he plays half a season.

You make it sound like TP was the main cause to the Spurs success or something. Tony Parker was the 2nd or 3rd option behind Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili. He was in a great system with great players and a great coach that was good enough altogether to win championships. He was a very importance piece for the Spurs, but I wouldn't bring up team championships in an argument for the better individual player.

 

And whether Tony Parker is the better overall scorer to Steve Nash is very arguable. Steve has proven enough in the past the he can put up a large number of points when he has to, plus he can score more efficiently in more areas of the court than Tony. I think the main reason Tony scores more is because that is simply his role on his team. He is more aggressive in looking for his own shot often throughout the game while Nash is more concerned with setting up his teammates.

 

Anyway, all I'm saying is that whether Nash or Parker is better than the other is arguable, but in no way is Nash "trailing and eating his dust" when it comes to overall game. Same thing goes for Arenas, despite the injury problems in the past. You can't ignore a guy who is already putting up the same numbers as in 06-07 of 28 ppg and 6 ast. If he remains healthy, he'll easily be a top 5 PG again.

[Real Deal]

If you take away the screens, Nash turns into the player he used to be in Dallas, a good 15-16 PPG scorer and someone who really can't go beyond that when needed. Hell, he was getting very generous screens in Dallas to get those points, also. The Steve Nash that I know without the screens were when he was in Phoenix to start out his career.

 

If he's not getting a screen to hit a three, he's getting one to cause a mismatch. He's a product of the offense he plays in. With an excellent pick and roll guy in Amare, and a guy that tore up opposing wings and large power forwards in Marion, Nash racked up his assists and drew defensive attention away using that offense, just enough to get his shot off.

 

And me saying Arenas is a top point is like me claiming Ariza is a top 10 player in the league based on his 24 PPG and 50% shooting (or whatever it is). We'll see how those stats look when the halfway point approaches, and players are tired from being that primary scoring option.

[His Greatness]

If you take away the screens, Nash turns into the player he used to be in Dallas, a good 15-16 PPG scorer and someone who really can't go beyond that when needed. Hell, he was getting very generous screens in Dallas to get those points, also. The Steve Nash that I know without the screens were when he was in Phoenix to start out his career.

 

If he's not getting a screen to hit a three, he's getting one to cause a mismatch. He's a product of the offense he plays in.

Um, screens are a fundamental aspect of every offense. Your other points might be valid, but that's absolutely ridiculous.

[Real Deal]

Um, screens are a fundamental aspect of every offense. Your other points might be valid, but that's absolutely ridiculous.

So you're willing to tell me that Shaq's screen and rolls in Phoenix were more effective than Amare's? Or as effective?

[His Greatness]

So you're willing to tell me that Shaq's screen and rolls in Phoenix were more effective than Amare's? Or as effective?

What? No... but how is any of that relevant? You said Nash is a product of the offense.

[Real Deal]

What? No... but how is any of that relevant? You said Nash is a product of the offense.

His teammates are a part of his offense. They changed the offense when Shaq came in, ended up getting dropped from the playoffs in the first round when Tony Parker (surprise, surprise) crushed Nash and set some sort of a postseason record (with Tim) for most points scored in the paint in a series, or something like that.

 

Remove Amare and give Nash a poor pick and roll teammate, take Marion out of that lineup and give him a talented shooter instead. Those screens become less effective, Nash gets off less threes from it, and he probably ends up averaging the same amount of assists, less points.

[Poe]

If you take away the screens, Nash turns into the player he used to be in Dallas, a good 15-16 PPG scorer and someone who really can't go beyond that when needed. Hell, he was getting very generous screens in Dallas to get those points, also. The Steve Nash that I know without the screens were when he was in Phoenix to start out his career.

 

If he's not getting a screen to hit a three, he's getting one to cause a mismatch. He's a product of the offense he plays in. With an excellent pick and roll guy in Amare, and a guy that tore up opposing wings and large power forwards in Marion, Nash racked up his assists and drew defensive attention away using that offense, just enough to get his shot off.

 

And me saying Arenas is a top point is like me claiming Ariza is a top 10 player in the league based on his 24 PPG and 50% shooting (or whatever it is). We'll see how those stats look when the halfway point approaches, and players are tired from being that primary scoring option.

 

What makes Nash so good, other than his ability to score at a high percentage at just about any spot on the floor, is that he is almost completely unpredictable with the basketball in his hands: he has no tendencies. No matter how much game tape a defensive player would study from Nash, trying to predict his next move at any moment on the court is little more than a guessing game. Parker, on the other hand, easily has tendencies. You know exactly where he wants to go with the ball. Thing is, not too many players are quick enough to beat him there and stop the drive.

 

Wherever Nash scores from, whether it's from a screen or not, it's still all elements of the game. Saying that Nash can't use screens as a part of his offense is like saying Parker can't run on fastbreaks to attempt any of his shots. Sure, maybe Steve Nash wouldn't score quite as much without the use of screens, but then again, neither would Ray Allen or Reggie Miller when it comes to off ball screens. It's not a negative part of a player's game to be so damn good at playing off of screens, on ball or off.

 

Still, do you think Nash won 2 MVPs only for the ability to play screen n roll offense? I know his MVPs were probably somewhat undeserved, but still, how many times has Parker even been a candidate?

 

Again, I'm not saying Nash is clearly better than Parker at all. Actually, at Nash's age, it won't be too long before Parker surpasses Nash, yet right now, if Parker IS better than Nash, it's not nearly by any long shot.

 

-------

 

The difference between Ariza and Arenas is that Arenas has already put up these kinds of numbers in the past. Arenas is much less likely to have his stats drop off as the season progresses than Ariza, especially when scoring 30+ points is still unusual for Ariza in this point of his career. Again, IF Arenas remains healthy, he is easily top 5.

[His Greatness]

His teammates are a part of his offense. They changed the offense when Shaq came in, ended up getting dropped from the playoffs in the first round when Tony Parker (surprise, surprise) crushed Nash and set some sort of a postseason record (with Tim) for most points scored in the paint in a series, or something like that.

 

Remove Amare and give Nash a poor pick and roll teammate, take Marion out of that lineup and give him a talented shooter instead. Those screens become less effective, Nash gets off less threes from it, and he probably ends up averaging the same amount of assists, less points.

Remove any cogs from an offense, introduce a hindrance and the numbers will inevitably dip. It doesn't diminish a player's ability. You can't accurately evaluate any players by nitpicking.

[Real Deal]

See, there are players that can't perform in certain offenses. That's the way it is in football as well. You guys know that. Do you think Allen Iverson would ever be a good fit in the triangle, even when he was in his prime?

 

I could've switched Amare with anyone of his caliber, just an opposite player. Doesn't matter. The offense is what I'm pointing at. You stick Steve Nash in a half court set, all game and every game, with a less mobile center, and you're going to see different stats from Nash.

 

Nash went four years off the radar, Dirk came to Dallas and the year Nowitzki became the primary option for Dallas, Nash jumped from single-digit scoring to almost 16 PPG, a career high, along with career highs in assists, in field goal percentage, rebounds, steals, and the following season, in three point percentage.

 

Dirk's scoring dropped back down to less than 22 PPG in 2003-04, and ironically, so did Steve's, to his lowest since those first four seasons in the league.

 

The following year, with just Marion, Nash averaged his second lowest scoring output since the first four years of his career.

 

Amare returns, and Nash's scoring pops back up 4+ PPG.

 

In 2008-09, Amare missing a lot, Shaq in the offense, Nash averages under 16 again, marking his third lowest since the first four seasons (first and second being those I mentioned above).

 

No Shaq, Amare healthy, Hill playing well and Richardson scoring, and Nash is back up to almost 19 per game, as four other teammates are scoring 18+ PPG and all of them shooting 52% or better from the field (Richardson, Amare, Frye and Hill).

 

Product of his offense. If he doesn't play in a get-up-and-go, seven-second or screen and roll-reliant offense, Nash doesn't show MVP numbers. He's not the scorer he can be if others aren't scoring around him...and that's what separates him from the other league MVP's, like LeBron James and Kobe Bryant.

[PapaDoink]

Real do you think that Nash can play one on one pretty well also though?

[Real Deal]

Real do you think that Nash can play one on one pretty well also though?

Not as well as Deron, Paul or Parker.