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

again

Celtics got luck with matchups. If they played the Bucks in the 2nd round they wouldve gotten dominated again like last year

Now theyre about to get swept.

Brad Stevens is also a mediocre coach. Hes NOT a LEADER. Hes just Xs and Os. Babyboi cant beat a 2-3 zone. No adjustments. CONSTANT 3rd quarter bed crappings.

Siakam forgot how to play basketball and shot 10% for the series and Raptors still almost won the series

Kyrie was right

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

Irrelevant but this gif has to be one of the greatest nba gifs of all time. I dont even know where/when it took place but its hilarious. Too good.

How come every team just performs better when Kyrie is no longer on it? Even the Nets, whose roster Kyrie deemed to weak (such leadership), has a better win ratio when Kyrie doesn't see the court.

2018 Celtics without Kyrie - Eastern Conference Finals, one game away from NBA Finals
2019 Celtics with Kyrie - 2nd round exit, backdoor swept with Kyrie averaging 20.4 on 36%
2020 Celtics without Kyrie - Eastern Conference Finals
2020 Nets with Kyrie - 8-12
2020 Nets without Kyrie - 27-25

I hate Kyrie's guts, but I have to admit, that is one powerful resumé that clearly shows Kyrie makes the teams he is on better.

Lol what?

Kemba is such a great locker room guy though, it was all Kyries fault!

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

The Celtics need to apologize to Kyrie for making it further in the playoffs the years he wasn't on the court? Based on available evidence Boston had a better chance to get past Milwaukee last year( or at least make it a better series) if Kyrie was elsewhere discussing flat earth theories.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14123760]The Celtics need to apologize to Kyrie for making it further in the playoffs the years he wasn't on the court? Based on available evidence Boston had a better chance to get past Milwaukee last year( or at least make it a better series) if Kyrie was elsewhere discussing flat earth theories.[/QUOTE]
Ironically the only time during the last 4 years the Celtics didn't make the ECF was when Kyrie was playing for them :lol

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14123760]The Celtics need to apologize to Kyrie for making it further in the playoffs the years he wasn't on the court? Based on available evidence Boston had a better chance to get past Milwaukee last year( or at least make it a better series) if Kyrie was elsewhere discussing flat earth theories.[/QUOTE]

And when did they face a #1 seed with the MVP in the 2nd round, other than 2019?

To put it bluntly, Kyrie doesn't deserve shit from the Celtics

He was absolutely horrible in the 2019 playoffs, especially in the 2nd round where he shot an abysmal 35% and practically looked like he had given up. Also, lets not forget just how toxic he was, and how much of a distraction he became throughout the season. It all started with him wanting to be "the man" and then the flat Earth bullshit, and early last season he said he'd resign with the Celtics only to leave during the offseason.

Celtics are much, much better off without Kyrie and it shows.

Isaiah Thomas: miss me yet? down here!!

[QUOTE=ImKobe;14123762]And when did they face a #1 seed with the MVP in the 2nd round, other than 2019?[/QUOTE]

You mean the same number one seed and (likely) MVP that got blown out of the playoffs this year? Let's not act like the Bucks have been some indomitable playoff force the last couple of years. There's literally no evidence in the last 3 years that the Celtics oncourt chances improve with Kyrie.

What's the Nets record with him this year? 8-12. Record without? 27-25. When you find any evidence that his teams are better with him on the floor, I'm all ears.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14123761]Ironically the only time during the last 4 years the Celtics didn't make the ECF was when Kyrie was playing for them :lol[/QUOTE]

Lol yep. Boston gets further in the playoffs without him, and his current team has a better record when he's not playing. I mean :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14123769]You mean the same number one seed and (likely) MVP that got blown out of the playoffs this year? Let's not act like the Bucks have been some indomitable playoff force the last couple of years. There's literally no evidence in the last 3 years that the Celticss chances

What's the Nets record with him this year? 8-12. Record without? 27-25. When you find any evidence that his teams are better with him on the floor, I'm all ears.[/QUOTE]

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?

No apologies needed as he was a big part of the problem. Obviously, some of that problem remains and I think it is largely the coach or management. If tatum makes boneheaded plays and often loses the ball, I put that on the coaching staff. You have to know how to integrate and make your players play better individually and as a team.

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.

[QUOTE=Gray GOAT;14123736]How come every team just performs better when Kyrie is no longer on it? Even the Nets, whose roster Kyrie deemed to weak (such leadership), has a better win ratio when Kyrie doesn't see the court.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=TheGoatest;14123740]2018 Celtics without Kyrie - Eastern Conference Finals, one game away from NBA Finals
2019 Celtics with Kyrie - 2nd round exit, backdoor swept with Kyrie averaging 20.4 on 36%
2020 Celtics without Kyrie - Eastern Conference Finals
2020 Nets with Kyrie - 8-12
2020 Nets without Kyrie - 27-25

I hate Kyrie's guts, but I have to admit, that is one powerful resumé that clearly shows Kyrie makes the teams he is on better.[/QUOTE]

The evidence speaks for itself. Even if the Celtics lose the series this is their PO performance in recent years:

[U]Celtics from 2017-2020[/U]

2017: ECF
2018: ECF
2019: Lost in 5 in the second round
2020: ECF

What was different about that one outlier year? :oldlol:

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14123958]

What was different about that one outlier year? :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

They actually played a title contender in the '19 ECSF? That's not enough? I'm sure the '17 Wizards or the '18 Sixers or the '20 Raptors were as good as a 60-win team that had the #4 offense and #1 defense with the league MVP.

[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]

I mean, are you this stupid?

Enough Kobe haters in here. You trying to make them look better? This is a stupid response. You sound sensitive and defensive, looking for any opportunity to defend something.

[QUOTE=Whoah10115;14123969]I mean, are you this stupid?

Enough Kobe haters in here. You trying to make them look better? This is a stupid response. You sound sensitive and defensive, looking for any opportunity to defend something.[/QUOTE]

I'm asking for some consistency here. If we shit on one player for a bad 4-game stretch, can we not do the same with the guy who's his replacement and who was supposed to be so much better? This is Kemba's first Playoffs since 2016 & he's been underwhelming with how much hype he got as Kyrie's replacement. Celtcs would have lost in the 2nd round, had Tatum not developed into a borderline superstar this season.

By almost every metric the Celtics are a better team without Kyrie and the results show it.

I can’t see how Kyrie has any fans were after the last two seasons

[QUOTE=ImKobe;14123961]They actually played a title contender in the '19 ECSF? That's not enough? I'm sure the '17 Wizards or the '18 Sixers or the '20 Raptors were as good as a 60-win team that had the #4 offense and #1 defense with the league MVP.[/QUOTE]

Did you watch the ****ing games? Kyrie was the reason why we got bent by the bucks dumbass ��

[QUOTE=CelticBaller;14123982]Did you watch the ****ing games? Kyrie was the reason why we got bent by the bucks dumbass ��[/QUOTE]

:lol

3ball Junior I is pushing Kyrie for the same reason he pushes Davis and Wade.

[QUOTE=ImKobe;14123894]SNIP[/QUOTE]

The point in raising 2017 is to say different team makeups of the Celtics in the last 4 years have gotten further than the Kyrie led Celtics in 2019. And generally, by players that would be considered 'worse' than Kyrie as individual talents. It's as simple as that and why nobody owes him an apology. If the Celts had actually gotten past the Bucks last year led by Kyrie this would be a 'I told you so' discussion but even then, the Bucks didn't play the Celts this year and we don't for sure what the net result would be this time around.

What we do know is this years Celtics team has a much better sense of identity and structure than last year's team trying to incorporate Kyrie as leader into mix as well as Hayward. Tatum was considered to be somewhat of a disappointment in 2019 relative to the expectations people had for him coming off the 2018 playoffs. And oh look, with Kyrie out of the way the natural upward curve he was on returned to the degree of him making all-NBA third team this year. Now part of that could be that he's just a year older and more experienced, but another part is clearly Kyrie didn't do much for Tatum's development and clashed with the younger Celts who marked their territory after the 2018 Cinderella playoff run. Insert Kemba who fit in far more seamlessly which allowed the Tatum/Brown duo to blossom. I would control your hard-on on Miami getting to the finals just yet. Both games were won by 5 or less points and the Celts have so far played Miami closer than the Bucks did. Never mind the fact that we've had a few 1-3 comebacks already so unless Miami wins game 3, I wouldn't start printing out Heat 2020 conference champion hats and t-shirts yet.


He's not the only reason for the Bucks loss, but you're the one arguing Kyrie is owed an apology. Actually I don't even know what you're arguing overall. Some misguided attempt to say if Kyrie was on the Celts now they wouldn't be down 0-2 to Miami? Some snipe at Kemba? Because you seem to have some weird smugness about the Heat being up 2-0, but I'm not sure where that ties in with Kyrie. Are you saying if Kyrie was on the Celts this year and playing now the Heat wouldn't be up 2-0? Kyrie was injured this year and didn't play in the bubble so it's neither here nor there. But I doubt guys like Tatum and Brown would have been as good this year if Kyrie was there still fighting over whose team it is, which was the obvious dynamic playing out. So again, I don't think Kyrie's presence on this team lifts them higher than they already are. He's a great individual talent but he's not a galvanizer, leader, or someone who makes guys around him better. Which is why I and just about everyone else here make the point that the Celtics have done better without him, both before he arrived and after. He's owed nothing. Dude hasn't even played in 2 of the last 3 playoffs with his team eligible, so we should be discussing his availability and reliability as much as what actually happens on-court.

You speak to the (lack of) experience of the Sixers in this series as if Tatum and Brown were vets. Tatum was a rookie, Rozier had 2 years under his belt, Brown 1.The only 'experienced' Celt of consequence was Horford. And if you want to stick with the 'Bucks are a bad matchup' and that the Celts were lucky to avoid them this year, IF Kyrie was playing for Boston this year and IF they ended up playing the Bucks again, they'd lose for the same reason you're using above: bad matchups. So what are you arguing about again in Kyrie's defense? They lost 4-1 to the Bucks last year, I can't imagine the current Celtics doing any worse than that if they matched up again. And whose to say Kyrie in 18 gets them to the finals over the Cavs if they get that far? Kyrie would have made it personal because of the Lebron matchup and that unto itself could have derailed their chances. We simply don't know one way or the other.

Except 20 games this year amounts to 28% of the season since they played 72 total. We're not talking a 5 game sample where the Nets went 2-3 with Kyrie or something like that. 20 games, and being 8-12 in those games, is more than enough of a sample size. There's a good chance they end up with an above .500 record if they didn't have Kyrie 'leading' them to 8-12 when he was on the floor. You're fixated on the argument that Kyrie makes teams 'worse' without presenting any evidence that he makes them better.

[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]

Nets were lucky to be in the playoffs this year. Good thing Kyrie 'only' played in 20 games ( he won 8) to minimize the damage and allow the Nets to otherwise win enough games to get in.

[QUOTE=ImKobe;14123946]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.[/QUOTE]

He had good series on the Cavs when nothing was expected of him but being a scoring weapon alongside Lebron, which he's damn good at. It's when we talk about him leading a team and making a players around him better that things fall off the track. He's a great player. But you're arguing him to be something he's never proven in any situation where he's been the best player and/or expected to lead.

[QUOTE=ImKobe;14123977]I'm asking for some consistency here. If we shit on one player for a bad 4-game stretch, can we not do the same with the guy who's his replacement and who was supposed to be so much better? This is Kemba's first Playoffs since 2016 & he's been underwhelming with how much hype he got as Kyrie's replacement. Celtcs would have lost in the 2nd round, [B]had Tatum not developed into a borderline superstar this season.[/B][/QUOTE]

Immediately after Kyrie left, don't leave out that part.

[QUOTE=CelticBaller;14123982]Did you watch the ****ing games? Kyrie was the reason why we got bent by the bucks dumbass ��[/QUOTE]

I already told you that Kyrie did suck in that series, but they weren't going to win regardless with half the team playing just as badly as well with them having no answer for Giannis either. Go back and look at those games, it's not like they were right there to win games 2-5 and Irving just happened to shoot them out of it in the end, the games were over before that. If you're his hell-bent on shitting on Kyrie for his poor shooting, do the same with Tatum, Rozier & Hayward.

Go back & look at some of these boxscores

Game 2, Irving is terrible in the first half with 2/12 shooting but they're right in it with the Bucks leading 59 - 55. 3rd Quarter, Bucks absolutely dominate the Celtics 39 - 18. Irving has 4 pts 2 ast 2 TO on 2/5 shooting, Horford 3 pts on 1/1 w/ 3TOs Tatum, Rozier & Hayward combine for 0 points 2 TOs on 0/8 shooting as the Bucks put away the game in that quarter as Giannis dominates them with 15 pts in under 10 minutes. He was splashing 3s too.

Game 3, same thing, it's close at the half with Celtics leading 56 - 55, all the starters play well but the bench gives them 0 points. In the 3rd, the Bucks outscore the Celtics 40 - 31 despite Irving's 12 pts on 3/7 FG, the Celtics win the 4th 29 - 28 but were never really close enough to have a chance to win it, some garbage time points from Horford to make it look closer than it was.

Game 4, Celtics win the first half 49 - 47. Here we go again with the 3rd quarter collapse, this time it happens despite Giannis only playing 3 minutes because of foul trouble, still puts up 7. Celtics lose the quarter 33 - 23 despite Kyrie's 5 pts 4 ast on 0/2FG, Irving has 7 pts 2 ast on 2/5FG in the 4th but Giannis steamrolls them with 17/7 on 6/9 FG in the 4th.

Game 5 is all on Irving for shooting bricks, 5/16 in the first half for 13 points, they're down 39 - 52 at the half and another bad 3rd quarter with Giannis dominating ends the series.

What I don't get here is how you can put it all on Irving, when the Celtics' inability to defend Giannis was the #1 issue? These games weren't even close for Irving to have any late-game magic, the Bucks came out and dominated every 3rd quarter, there was no answer for Giannis and that was the main problem. Bucks came out every 3rd half and he dominated.