Kyrie deserves an apology for the Celtics collapsing and about to lose 4 straight

2017 w/o Kyrie: ECF
2018 w/o Kyrie: ECF
2019 w/ Kyrie: ECSF embarrassing 5-game flame-out
2020 w/o Kyrie: ECF

Lolol

[QUOTE=ImKobe;14123773]And it's about match-ups. Celtics had no one/a good game plan to stop Giannis, which is the main reason they lost last year. Look at Boston's quality of opponents in the 2nd rounds, which one of them is the best team they've faced? It's easily the 2019 Bucks. They beat the lowly Wizards in 2017, the Sixers with rookie Simmons & Embiid in 2018 & barely beat a Raptors team that overachieved in the RS with Lowry as their best player this year. But but the Heat beat the Bucks! Guess what the Heat are about to do to the Celtics this year?[/QUOTE]

I glanced over your post because after two sentences I saw that little was going to address the core points being made. I never said the Celtics definitively beat the Bucks without Kyrie last year, I said there's no real reason to think that the Celts chances were any better with him than without. The evidence points to other more reasonable conclusions.

Let's look at the last 4 years. They make the conference finals in 2017, 2018, and 2020. What do all of these Celtics teams have in common? Kyrie wasn't on the team( well he was on the 2018 team obviously but not part of their playoff run), and were being led by players( Isaiah Thomas, Tatum and Kemba) that most people would say Kyrie is a better individual player than. Except that hasn't translated to the actual team success being higher. The one year we heard about any chemistry issues with the Celtics is last season, the one with Kyrie leading the way. And it's no coincidence that the team was eliminated earlier then they otherwise have been in the last 4 years. That's only partly due to the 'bad matchup with the Bucks' handwave you're leaning on. So it leads to the conclusion that the Celtics may have put up a better fight in 2019 without Kyrie there shooting 35% or whatever he was doing along with the season long chemistry issues. It doesnt give me much reason to think they make the finals in 2018 with Kyrie, quite the opposite I wonder if the Celts even make the conference finals that year and if they do, are they still taking the Cavs to the wire?

And then, let's circle back to my point about the Nets this year that you ignored. If Kyrie is a net positive for the team then why is their record better with him off the floor? Whatever your personal affinity is for him, it doesnt matter in the context of what is being discussed. Kyrie is a dynamic talent. He's isn't a player whose presence elevates the team. We have the last 4 years of data to back this up. How much more evidence do you need?

I'm sorry, being down 0-2 in ECF is proof that Kyrie was unfairly blamed? What happens if they lose 4-2?

kyrie made them worse and was kinda trash. thats just a fact.

The one year they didn't make the ECFs was the year Kyrie was out there in the playoffs. So...no.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14123788]I glanced over your post because after two sentences I saw that little was going to address the core points being made. I never said the Celtics definitively beat the Bucks without Kyrie last year, I said there's no real reason to think that the Celts chances were any better with him than without. The evidence points to other more reasonable conclusions.

Let's look at the last 4 years. They make the conference finals in 2017, 2018, and 2020. What do all of these Celtics teams have in common? Kyrie wasn't on the team( well he was on the 2018 team obviously but not part of their playoff run), and were being led by players( Isaiah Thomas, Tatum and Kemba) that most people would say Kyrie is a better individual player than. Except that hasn't translated to the actual team success being higher. The one year we heard about any chemistry issues with the Celtics is last season, the one with Kyrie leading the way. And it's no coincidence that the team was eliminated earlier then they otherwise have been in the last 4 years. That's only partly due to the 'bad matchup with the Bucks' handwave you're leaning on. So it leads to the conclusion that the Celtics may have put up a better fight in 2019 without Kyrie there shooting 35% or whatever he was doing along with the season long chemistry issues. It doesnt give me much reason to think they make the finals in 2018 with Kyrie, quite the opposite I wonder if the Celts even make the conference finals that year and if they do, are they still taking the Cavs to the wire?

And then, let's circle back to my point about the Nets this year that you ignored. If Kyrie is a net positive for the team then why is their record better with him off the floor? Whatever your personal affinity is for him, it doesnt matter in the context of what is being discussed. Kyrie is a dynamic talent. He's isn't a player whose presence elevates the team. We have the last 4 years of data to back this up. How much more evidence do you need?[/QUOTE]

And the years they made ECF, they didn't face a team as good as the Bucks. I don't know why people even argue 2017 here when Tatum wasn't there and it was IT & Avery Bradley carrying them out of the first round (thanks to the Rondo injury as well), Jaylen Brown was a role player and Horford was the only starter from that team that played in '18 & '19.

The Bucks have everything to do with it. Giannis was a match-up nightmare for Boston & the Bucks also had the best defense in the league w/ the #4 offense. Compare that to the '17 Wizards (7th offense, 20th defense), '18 Sixers (12th offense, 4th defense) & '20 Raptors (14th offense, 2nd defense). This is why. Kyrie wasn't good but to act as if he's the reason they underachieved is being dishonest, when Tatum, Hayward and Rozier were just as bad/worse.

You put the other Celtics teams against the same Bucks and the result doesn't change because the same match-up issues are still there. Oh yes, somehow the Celtics in '18 don't make the ECF with Irving when they dusted the Sixers in 5, thanks in large part to Philly having no Playoffs experience with Embiid being worn out in 2nd halves as he always is in the Playoffs. Literally nothing changes, except maybe they beat the Cavs, because they struggled offensively in the ECF with Rozier reverting back to being the bum that he really is.

The Nets example is also dumb as ****, the sample size with Irving is so small that to suggest that they're better without him is just being dishonest. They lost a couple games early with Irving going off and the 2nd unit underperforming. His numbers were all the way up this season. Game 1 is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Irving scores 50 and is a +18 and they lose by 1 point. Then obviously he has his injuries and doesn't even finish some of those games because of it. It's just being dishonest to say that Irving makes teams worse, you're acting as if he was some washed up star post-Cavs. They went 5 - 3 in the bubble with LeVert going off (he was also injured early in the season). They finished with a sub.500 record and got blown out by an average of ~20 ppg in the first round. Wow, so much better without Kyrie.

If Kyrie was still here, we wouldn't have made it as far as we did. :oldlol:

I'll take Kemba's leadership on and off the court anyday over Kyrie's. Hence the avy.

I don't need a PG whos shooting 30% on 30 shots saying he should've shot more. :roll:

I think the celtics sold some kyrie jerseys. Other than that they got nothing out of his presence. This thread is just the OP making the same Celtic doom thread he makes every round. Eventually he'll be right. Congrats on being a broken clock.

[QUOTE=Wally450;14123903]If Kyrie was still here, we wouldn't have made it as far as we did. :oldlol:

I'll take Kemba's leadership on and off the court anyday over Kyrie's. Hence the avy.

I don't need a PG whos shooting 30% on 30 shots saying he should've shot more. :roll:[/QUOTE]

Kemba in the last 6 games is averaging 16 ppg on 38.2%FG/20% 3PT, Game 2 ECF was his first time in 6 games that he made more than one three :kobe: . He's anemic in 4th quarters and kills them on the defensive end. He's a cancer.

[IMG]https://media1.tenor.com/images/27101186c57e8a5a94df93fdd9f41522/tenor.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE=ImKobe;14123914]Kemba in the last 6 games is averaging 16 ppg on 38.2%FG/20% 3PT, Game 2 ECF was his first time in 6 games that he made more than one three :kobe: . He's anemic in 4th quarters and kills them on the defensive end. He's a cancer.[/QUOTE]

Made it further with Kemba than we did with Kyrie. Wouldn't even be in the ECF with Kyrie, that's just a fact.

[QUOTE=Wally450;14123918]Made it further with Kemba than we did with Kyrie. Wouldn't even be in the ECF with Kyrie, that's just a fact.[/QUOTE]

They won against the Raptors with Kemba playing like a bum in the last 2 games, they're lucky to even be in the ECF. You think Kyrie couldn't have given them 9.5 ppg in 47.8 mpg on 25.9%FG/15.4%3PT/60%FT like Kemba did in Games 6 & 7?

[QUOTE=ImKobe;14123923]They won against the Raptors with Kemba playing like a bum in the last 2 games, they're lucky to even be in the ECF. You think Kyrie couldn't have given them 9.5 ppg in 47.8 mpg on 25.9%FG/15.4%3PT/60%FT like Kemba did in Games 6 & 7?[/QUOTE]

He would've done that while taking 30 shots and zoning out the other 4 guys on the floor. Similar to what happened in games 4-5 last year against the Bucks.

OP has low basketball IQ :oldlol:

[QUOTE=Wally450;14123932]He would've done that while taking 30 shots and zoning out the other 4 guys on the floor. Similar to what happened in games 4-5 last year against the Bucks.[/QUOTE]

Well, how come he didn't do that on the Cavs then? Does one bad series erase all the good ones he's had? That's like the overreacting people are doing with Kawhi right now. One bad series & all the good ones all of a sudden didn't happen.