Rozier On Get Up! & First Take Today

[Somebody]

If you haven't watched the interviews you really should.   

https://youtu.be/EBRYxN4MLPk

The quotes, taken out of context, were much worse than the actual message.  It was a wide-ranging interview full of perspective and honesty (which is extremely rare in this day and age). 

I can see why people like Ainge bought into Terry in the first place.

TP.

[nickagneta]

If you haven't watched the interviews you really should.   

https://youtu.be/EBRYxN4MLPk

The quotes, taken out of context, were much worse than the actual message.  It was a wide-ranging interview full of perspective and honesty (which is extremely rare in this day and age). 

I can see why people like Ainge bought into Terry in the first place.

TP.

I have watched the interviews. Yes, there is more context. But I still feel Rozier came off bad. Even with context he admitted he was mentally compromised from the start because he didn't have Kyrie's spot, thought himself deserving of handing the ball more than Kyrie and Gordon, admitted he and others were out trying harder to get theirs in a contract year, kinda through his Coach under the bus and is so in love with himself and his abilities he referred to himself in the 3rd person.

Context or not, he did do and say all that. Given his play on the court this year, he should have kept his mouth shut. Let's review just how poor his year is so we can appreciate just how bad his game was compared to how good he thinks he is:

MPG: 22.7
PPG: 9.0
RPG: 3.9
APG: 2.9
FG%: 38.7%
3PT%: 35.3%
FT%: 78.5%
eFG%: 47.7%
TS%: 50.1%
WS: 3.2
WS/48: 0.086
OFFRAT: 103.9
DEFRAT: 105.2
NetRAT: -1.3

That's bad and matches with the eye test. Problem is those numbers are very close to what he does on a yearly average or are worse than those yearly numbers.

He simply isn't good enough and didn't play well enough to justify he should have had even the role he was given, nevermind something larger than he got.

[SHAQATTACK]

Rozier shot his load ,  no amount of begging gets him back on the Celtics with that IQ

[Triplenickle]

If you haven't watched the interviews you really should.   

https://youtu.be/EBRYxN4MLPk

The quotes, taken out of context, were much worse than the actual message.  It was a wide-ranging interview full of perspective and honesty (which is extremely rare in this day and age). 

I can see why people like Ainge bought into Terry in the first place.

TP.

I have watched the interviews. Yes, there is more context. But I still feel Rozier came off bad. Even with context he admitted he was mentally compromised from the start because he didn't have Kyrie's spot, thought himself deserving of handing the ball more than Kyrie and Gordon, admitted he and others were out trying harder to get theirs in a contract year, kinda through his Coach under the bus and is so in love with himself and his abilities he referred to himself in the 3rd person.

Context or not, he did do and say all that. Given his play on the court this year, he should have kept his mouth shut. Let's review just how poor his year is so we can appreciate just how bad his game was compared to how good he thinks he is:

MPG: 22.7
PPG: 9.0
RPG: 3.9
APG: 2.9
FG%: 38.7%
3PT%: 35.3%
FT%: 78.5%
eFG%: 47.7%
TS%: 50.1%
WS: 3.2
WS/48: 0.086
OFFRAT: 103.9
DEFRAT: 105.2
NetRAT: -1.3

That's bad and matches with the eye test. Problem is those numbers are very close to what he does on a yearly average or are worse than those yearly numbers.

He simply isn't good enough and didn't play well enough to justify he should have had even the role he was given, nevermind something larger than he got.

Aaaah...so if he played Iverson type minutes...and doubled up to 44...that's 18 ppg, 8 rebounds, and 6 assists, good foul and 3pt shooting.

Accomplishing that while another guy takes your spot that doesn't like to pass and you're either off-ball playing with that same guy and then used as a wing being 6'2...

To me that shows if the team had faith and let him comfortably run the point where he takes good care of the ball, plays better D against other tricky points than Kyrie does, while moving the ball much better, rebounding at that kind of pace for a point allowing the team to run much more...is a much better fit than a point that takes the air out of the ball every possesion, while forcing shots against multiple defenders giving you only 22 points for the trouble.  Then add in the times they can run off his steals and you have an entirely different team than what we just watched.

And this in a year when the coaching staff could easily be graded an F, with EVERYONE taking bad shots with a poor defensive and rebounding scheme on top of it.

I just have no idea what you guys are watching, except waiting for the next play when Kyrie mesmerizes people and makes them feel good.

Or whatever that whole thing is about.

But I know one thing...yall didn't feel so good last week, or right now because of your dude.

That's reality

[Monkhouse]

If you haven't watched the interviews you really should.   

https://youtu.be/EBRYxN4MLPk

The quotes, taken out of context, were much worse than the actual message.  It was a wide-ranging interview full of perspective and honesty (which is extremely rare in this day and age). 

I can see why people like Ainge bought into Terry in the first place.

TP.

I have watched the interviews. Yes, there is more context. But I still feel Rozier came off bad. Even with context he admitted he was mentally compromised from the start because he didn't have Kyrie's spot, thought himself deserving of handing the ball more than Kyrie and Gordon, admitted he and others were out trying harder to get theirs in a contract year, kinda through his Coach under the bus and is so in love with himself and his abilities he referred to himself in the 3rd person.

Context or not, he did do and say all that. Given his play on the court this year, he should have kept his mouth shut. Let's review just how poor his year is so we can appreciate just how bad his game was compared to how good he thinks he is:

MPG: 22.7
PPG: 9.0
RPG: 3.9
APG: 2.9
FG%: 38.7%
3PT%: 35.3%
FT%: 78.5%
eFG%: 47.7%
TS%: 50.1%
WS: 3.2
WS/48: 0.086
OFFRAT: 103.9
DEFRAT: 105.2
NetRAT: -1.3

That's bad and matches with the eye test. Problem is those numbers are very close to what he does on a yearly average or are worse than those yearly numbers.

He simply isn't good enough and didn't play well enough to justify he should have had even the role he was given, nevermind something larger than he got.

Aaaah...so if he played Iverson type minutes...and doubled up to 44...that's 18 ppg, 8 rebounds, and 6 assists, good foul and 3pt shooting.

Accomplishing that while another guy takes your spot that doesn't like to pass and you're either off-ball playing with that same guy and then used as a wing being 6'2...

To me that shows if the team had faith and let him comfortably run the point where he takes good care of the ball, plays better D against other tricky points than Kyrie does, while moving the ball much better, rebounding at that kind of pace for a point allowing the team to run much more...is a much better fit than a point that takes the air out of the ball every possesion, while forcing shots against multiple defenders giving you only 22 points for the trouble.  Then add in the times they can run off his steals and you have an entirely different team than what we just watched.

And this in a year when the coaching staff could easily be graded an F, with EVERYONE taking bad shots with a poor defensive and rebounding scheme on top of it.

I just have no idea what you guys are watching, except waiting for the next play when Kyrie mesmerizes people and makes them feel good.

Or whatever that whole thing is about.

But I know one thing...yall didn't feel so good last week, or right now because of your dude.

That's reality

L O L

[Triplenickle]

How is that funny?  Those are hard stats that Nick posted and I didn't change one thing about them.

Obviously he's not gonna get Iverson minutes, but with the subtraction of Kyrie I think those numbers would be pretty close except rebounds.

Yall dream of JB shooting that ft %, and in what world is 35% 3pt shooting not acceptable?

And do yall honestly think anyone can sustain shooting 3's at 43% clip? (Tatum)

Yall demand perfection from everyone while happy to watch Kyrie bust it all up and do what he wants, no matter the outcome or how bad it is.

You guys are an enigma or something 

I'm beginning to think yall are trolls from another team wanting us to keep our cancer.

Correction:  Kyrie AND Hayward 

[Silky]

If you haven't watched the interviews you really should.   

https://youtu.be/EBRYxN4MLPk

The quotes, taken out of context, were much worse than the actual message.  It was a wide-ranging interview full of perspective and honesty (which is extremely rare in this day and age). 

I can see why people like Ainge bought into Terry in the first place.

TP.

I have watched the interviews. Yes, there is more context. But I still feel Rozier came off bad. Even with context he admitted he was mentally compromised from the start because he didn't have Kyrie's spot, thought himself deserving of handing the ball more than Kyrie and Gordon, admitted he and others were out trying harder to get theirs in a contract year, kinda through his Coach under the bus and is so in love with himself and his abilities he referred to himself in the 3rd person.

Context or not, he did do and say all that. Given his play on the court this year, he should have kept his mouth shut. Let's review just how poor his year is so we can appreciate just how bad his game was compared to how good he thinks he is:

MPG: 22.7
PPG: 9.0
RPG: 3.9
APG: 2.9
FG%: 38.7%
3PT%: 35.3%
FT%: 78.5%
eFG%: 47.7%
TS%: 50.1%
WS: 3.2
WS/48: 0.086
OFFRAT: 103.9
DEFRAT: 105.2
NetRAT: -1.3

That's bad and matches with the eye test. Problem is those numbers are very close to what he does on a yearly average or are worse than those yearly numbers.

He simply isn't good enough and didn't play well enough to justify he should have had even the role he was given, nevermind something larger than he got.

Aaaah...so if he played Iverson type minutes...and doubled up to 44...that's 18 ppg, 8 rebounds, and 6 assists, good foul and 3pt shooting.

Accomplishing that while another guy takes your spot that doesn't like to pass and you're either off-ball playing with that same guy and then used as a wing being 6'2...

To me that shows if the team had faith and let him comfortably run the point where he takes good care of the ball, plays better D against other tricky points than Kyrie does, while moving the ball much better, rebounding at that kind of pace for a point allowing the team to run much more...is a much better fit than a point that takes the air out of the ball every possesion, while forcing shots against multiple defenders giving you only 22 points for the trouble.  Then add in the times they can run off his steals and you have an entirely different team than what we just watched.

And this in a year when the coaching staff could easily be graded an F, with EVERYONE taking bad shots with a poor defensive and rebounding scheme on top of it.

I just have no idea what you guys are watching, except waiting for the next play when Kyrie mesmerizes people and makes them feel good.

Or whatever that whole thing is about.

But I know one thing...yall didn't feel so good last week, or right now because of your dude.

That's reality

Come on terry.

[Monkhouse]

How is that funny?  Those are hard stats that Nick posted and I didn't change one thing about them.

Obviously he's not gonna get Iverson minutes, but with the subtraction of Kyrie I think those numbers would be pretty close except rebounds.

Yall dream of JB shooting that ft %, and in what world is 35% 3pt shooting not acceptable?

And do yall honestly think anyone can sustain shooting 3's at 43% clip? (Tatum)

Yall demand perfection from everyone while happy to watch Kyrie bust it all up and do what he wants, no matter the outcome or how bad it is.

You guys are an enigma or something 

I'm beginning to think yall are trolls from another team wanting us to keep our cancer.

Thanks for the laugh.

By the way, calling us trolls.. LOL!

[Triplenickle]

How is that funny?  Those are hard stats that Nick posted and I didn't change one thing about them.

Obviously he's not gonna get Iverson minutes, but with the subtraction of Kyrie I think those numbers would be pretty close except rebounds.

Yall dream of JB shooting that ft %, and in what world is 35% 3pt shooting not acceptable?

And do yall honestly think anyone can sustain shooting 3's at 43% clip? (Tatum)

Yall demand perfection from everyone while happy to watch Kyrie bust it all up and do what he wants, no matter the outcome or how bad it is.

You guys are an enigma or something 

I'm beginning to think yall are trolls from another team wanting us to keep our cancer.

Thanks for the laugh.

By the way, calling us trolls.. LOL!

Lord have mercy.  I wish I could get you on court and show you exactly what I mean 

[RJ87]

If you haven't watched the interviews you really should.   

https://youtu.be/EBRYxN4MLPk

The quotes, taken out of context, were much worse than the actual message.  It was a wide-ranging interview full of perspective and honesty (which is extremely rare in this day and age). 

I can see why people like Ainge bought into Terry in the first place.

TP.

I have watched the interviews. Yes, there is more context. But I still feel Rozier came off bad. Even with context he admitted he was mentally compromised from the start because he didn't have Kyrie's spot, thought himself deserving of handing the ball more than Kyrie and Gordon, admitted he and others were out trying harder to get theirs in a contract year, kinda through his Coach under the bus and is so in love with himself and his abilities he referred to himself in the 3rd person.

Context or not, he did do and say all that. Given his play on the court this year, he should have kept his mouth shut. Let's review just how poor his year is so we can appreciate just how bad his game was compared to how good he thinks he is:

MPG: 22.7
PPG: 9.0
RPG: 3.9
APG: 2.9
FG%: 38.7%
3PT%: 35.3%
FT%: 78.5%
eFG%: 47.7%
TS%: 50.1%
WS: 3.2
WS/48: 0.086
OFFRAT: 103.9
DEFRAT: 105.2
NetRAT: -1.3

That's bad and matches with the eye test. Problem is those numbers are very close to what he does on a yearly average or are worse than those yearly numbers.

He simply isn't good enough and didn't play well enough to justify he should have had even the role he was given, nevermind something larger than he got.

Aaaah...so if he played Iverson type minutes...and doubled up to 44...that's 18 ppg, 8 rebounds, and 6 assists, good foul and 3pt shooting.

Accomplishing that while another guy takes your spot that doesn't like to pass and you're either off-ball playing with that same guy and then used as a wing being 6'2...

To me that shows if the team had faith and let him comfortably run the point where he takes good care of the ball, plays better D against other tricky points than Kyrie does, while moving the ball much better, rebounding at that kind of pace for a point allowing the team to run much more...is a much better fit than a point that takes the air out of the ball every possesion, while forcing shots against multiple defenders giving you only 22 points for the trouble.  Then add in the times they can run off his steals and you have an entirely different team than what we just watched.

And this in a year when the coaching staff could easily be graded an F, with EVERYONE taking bad shots with a poor defensive and rebounding scheme on top of it.

I just have no idea what you guys are watching, except waiting for the next play when Kyrie mesmerizes people and makes them feel good.

Or whatever that whole thing is about.

But I know one thing...yall didn't feel so good last week, or right now because of your dude.

That's reality

L O L

Exactly. No player in the league plays 44 minutes per game and there's no evidence that says Rozier can sustain his level of play (as mediocre as it is) over an extended period of time. The league leader in minutes was Brad Beal at 36. So let's look at Rozier's and Kyrie's #'s adjusted per 36 mins:

[Monkhouse]

How is that funny?  Those are hard stats that Nick posted and I didn't change one thing about them.

Obviously he's not gonna get Iverson minutes, but with the subtraction of Kyrie I think those numbers would be pretty close except rebounds.

Yall dream of JB shooting that ft %, and in what world is 35% 3pt shooting not acceptable?

And do yall honestly think anyone can sustain shooting 3's at 43% clip? (Tatum)

Yall demand perfection from everyone while happy to watch Kyrie bust it all up and do what he wants, no matter the outcome or how bad it is.

You guys are an enigma or something 

I'm beginning to think yall are trolls from another team wanting us to keep our cancer.

Thanks for the laugh.

By the way, calling us trolls.. LOL!

Lord have mercy.  I wish I could get you on court and show you exactly what I mean 

So what exactly do you mean? If Rozier goes somewhere like the Suns... Will you also watch/follow that team?

I'm just confused as to your unwavering confidence/infatuation with Rozier.

If you haven't watched the interviews you really should.   

https://youtu.be/EBRYxN4MLPk

The quotes, taken out of context, were much worse than the actual message.  It was a wide-ranging interview full of perspective and honesty (which is extremely rare in this day and age). 

I can see why people like Ainge bought into Terry in the first place.

TP.

I have watched the interviews. Yes, there is more context. But I still feel Rozier came off bad. Even with context he admitted he was mentally compromised from the start because he didn't have Kyrie's spot, thought himself deserving of handing the ball more than Kyrie and Gordon, admitted he and others were out trying harder to get theirs in a contract year, kinda through his Coach under the bus and is so in love with himself and his abilities he referred to himself in the 3rd person.

Context or not, he did do and say all that. Given his play on the court this year, he should have kept his mouth shut. Let's review just how poor his year is so we can appreciate just how bad his game was compared to how good he thinks he is:

MPG: 22.7
PPG: 9.0
RPG: 3.9
APG: 2.9
FG%: 38.7%
3PT%: 35.3%
FT%: 78.5%
eFG%: 47.7%
TS%: 50.1%
WS: 3.2
WS/48: 0.086
OFFRAT: 103.9
DEFRAT: 105.2
NetRAT: -1.3

That's bad and matches with the eye test. Problem is those numbers are very close to what he does on a yearly average or are worse than those yearly numbers.

He simply isn't good enough and didn't play well enough to justify he should have had even the role he was given, nevermind something larger than he got.

Aaaah...so if he played Iverson type minutes...and doubled up to 44...that's 18 ppg, 8 rebounds, and 6 assists, good foul and 3pt shooting.

Accomplishing that while another guy takes your spot that doesn't like to pass and you're either off-ball playing with that same guy and then used as a wing being 6'2...

To me that shows if the team had faith and let him comfortably run the point where he takes good care of the ball, plays better D against other tricky points than Kyrie does, while moving the ball much better, rebounding at that kind of pace for a point allowing the team to run much more...is a much better fit than a point that takes the air out of the ball every possesion, while forcing shots against multiple defenders giving you only 22 points for the trouble.  Then add in the times they can run off his steals and you have an entirely different team than what we just watched.

And this in a year when the coaching staff could easily be graded an F, with EVERYONE taking bad shots with a poor defensive and rebounding scheme on top of it.

I just have no idea what you guys are watching, except waiting for the next play when Kyrie mesmerizes people and makes them feel good.

Or whatever that whole thing is about.

But I know one thing...yall didn't feel so good last week, or right now because of your dude.

That's reality

L O L

Exactly. No player in the league plays 44 minutes per game and there's no evidence that says Rozier can sustain his level of play (as mediocre as it is) over an extended period of time. The league leader in minutes was Brad Beal at 36. So let's look at Rozier's and Kyrie's #'s adjusted per 36 mins:

False.

Rozier is clearly the better player than Irving. It's why he won gold medals, All-Star appearances, All-Star MVP, and averaged over 20 PPG in his sea-

Oh wait, that's Irving. Never mind.

LOL!

[Triplenickle]

If you haven't watched the interviews you really should.   

https://youtu.be/EBRYxN4MLPk

The quotes, taken out of context, were much worse than the actual message.  It was a wide-ranging interview full of perspective and honesty (which is extremely rare in this day and age). 

I can see why people like Ainge bought into Terry in the first place.

TP.

I have watched the interviews. Yes, there is more context. But I still feel Rozier came off bad. Even with context he admitted he was mentally compromised from the start because he didn't have Kyrie's spot, thought himself deserving of handing the ball more than Kyrie and Gordon, admitted he and others were out trying harder to get theirs in a contract year, kinda through his Coach under the bus and is so in love with himself and his abilities he referred to himself in the 3rd person.

Context or not, he did do and say all that. Given his play on the court this year, he should have kept his mouth shut. Let's review just how poor his year is so we can appreciate just how bad his game was compared to how good he thinks he is:

MPG: 22.7
PPG: 9.0
RPG: 3.9
APG: 2.9
FG%: 38.7%
3PT%: 35.3%
FT%: 78.5%
eFG%: 47.7%
TS%: 50.1%
WS: 3.2
WS/48: 0.086
OFFRAT: 103.9
DEFRAT: 105.2
NetRAT: -1.3

That's bad and matches with the eye test. Problem is those numbers are very close to what he does on a yearly average or are worse than those yearly numbers.

He simply isn't good enough and didn't play well enough to justify he should have had even the role he was given, nevermind something larger than he got.

Aaaah...so if he played Iverson type minutes...and doubled up to 44...that's 18 ppg, 8 rebounds, and 6 assists, good foul and 3pt shooting.

Accomplishing that while another guy takes your spot that doesn't like to pass and you're either off-ball playing with that same guy and then used as a wing being 6'2...

To me that shows if the team had faith and let him comfortably run the point where he takes good care of the ball, plays better D against other tricky points than Kyrie does, while moving the ball much better, rebounding at that kind of pace for a point allowing the team to run much more...is a much better fit than a point that takes the air out of the ball every possesion, while forcing shots against multiple defenders giving you only 22 points for the trouble.  Then add in the times they can run off his steals and you have an entirely different team than what we just watched.

And this in a year when the coaching staff could easily be graded an F, with EVERYONE taking bad shots with a poor defensive and rebounding scheme on top of it.

I just have no idea what you guys are watching, except waiting for the next play when Kyrie mesmerizes people and makes them feel good.

Or whatever that whole thing is about.

But I know one thing...yall didn't feel so good last week, or right now because of your dude.

That's reality

L O L

Exactly. No player in the league plays 44 minutes per game and there's no evidence that says Rozier can sustain his level of play (as mediocre as it is) over an extended period of time. The league leader in minutes was Brad Beal at 36. So let's look at Rozier's and Kyrie's #'s adjusted per 36 mins:

I said Iverson, who did that alot and the full game sometimes. Other players did that too, but yall wouldn't know that because yall are in the "modern nba" now.

But carry on and do what yall do. All I want is for people to just think a lil bit.  That's it.

[wiley]

too much thought and ink going into Rozier.  Just match anything reasonable and rebuild his value if going in another direction.  If Kyrie's here don't match obviously, unless you plan to start him at the 2 with Brown at the 3. 

[Triplenickle]

How is that funny?  Those are hard stats that Nick posted and I didn't change one thing about them.

Obviously he's not gonna get Iverson minutes, but with the subtraction of Kyrie I think those numbers would be pretty close except rebounds.

Yall dream of JB shooting that ft %, and in what world is 35% 3pt shooting not acceptable?

And do yall honestly think anyone can sustain shooting 3's at 43% clip? (Tatum)

Yall demand perfection from everyone while happy to watch Kyrie bust it all up and do what he wants, no matter the outcome or how bad it is.

You guys are an enigma or something 

I'm beginning to think yall are trolls from another team wanting us to keep our cancer.

Thanks for the laugh.

By the way, calling us trolls.. LOL!

Lord have mercy.  I wish I could get you on court and show you exactly what I mean 

So what exactly do you mean? If Rozier goes somewhere like the Suns... Will you also watch/follow that team?

I'm just confused as to your unwavering confidence/infatuation with Rozier.

If you haven't watched the interviews you really should.   

https://youtu.be/EBRYxN4MLPk

The quotes, taken out of context, were much worse than the actual message.  It was a wide-ranging interview full of perspective and honesty (which is extremely rare in this day and age). 

I can see why people like Ainge bought into Terry in the first place.

TP.

I have watched the interviews. Yes, there is more context. But I still feel Rozier came off bad. Even with context he admitted he was mentally compromised from the start because he didn't have Kyrie's spot, thought himself deserving of handing the ball more than Kyrie and Gordon, admitted he and others were out trying harder to get theirs in a contract year, kinda through his Coach under the bus and is so in love with himself and his abilities he referred to himself in the 3rd person.

Context or not, he did do and say all that. Given his play on the court this year, he should have kept his mouth shut. Let's review just how poor his year is so we can appreciate just how bad his game was compared to how good he thinks he is:

MPG: 22.7
PPG: 9.0
RPG: 3.9
APG: 2.9
FG%: 38.7%
3PT%: 35.3%
FT%: 78.5%
eFG%: 47.7%
TS%: 50.1%
WS: 3.2
WS/48: 0.086
OFFRAT: 103.9
DEFRAT: 105.2
NetRAT: -1.3

That's bad and matches with the eye test. Problem is those numbers are very close to what he does on a yearly average or are worse than those yearly numbers.

He simply isn't good enough and didn't play well enough to justify he should have had even the role he was given, nevermind something larger than he got.

Aaaah...so if he played Iverson type minutes...and doubled up to 44...that's 18 ppg, 8 rebounds, and 6 assists, good foul and 3pt shooting.

Accomplishing that while another guy takes your spot that doesn't like to pass and you're either off-ball playing with that same guy and then used as a wing being 6'2...

To me that shows if the team had faith and let him comfortably run the point where he takes good care of the ball, plays better D against other tricky points than Kyrie does, while moving the ball much better, rebounding at that kind of pace for a point allowing the team to run much more...is a much better fit than a point that takes the air out of the ball every possesion, while forcing shots against multiple defenders giving you only 22 points for the trouble.  Then add in the times they can run off his steals and you have an entirely different team than what we just watched.

And this in a year when the coaching staff could easily be graded an F, with EVERYONE taking bad shots with a poor defensive and rebounding scheme on top of it.

I just have no idea what you guys are watching, except waiting for the next play when Kyrie mesmerizes people and makes them feel good.

Or whatever that whole thing is about.

But I know one thing...yall didn't feel so good last week, or right now because of your dude.

That's reality

L O L

Exactly. No player in the league plays 44 minutes per game and there's no evidence that says Rozier can sustain his level of play (as mediocre as it is) over an extended period of time. The league leader in minutes was Brad Beal at 36. So let's look at Rozier's and Kyrie's #'s adjusted per 36 mins:

False.

Rozier is clearly the better player than Irving. It's why he won gold medals, All-Star appearances, All-Star MVP, and averaged over 20 PPG in his sea-

Oh wait, that's Irving. Never mind.

LOL!

You're just not able to understand what i'm saying. Nowhere on this board have I EVER said he was better than Kyrie.

I SAID HE WAS A BETTER FIT...and I already posted why. Matter fact HE already showed you but you have your head in the sand like an ostrich 

And I don't follow other teams because i'm not really impressed with the nba style now, and the rules.

I don't want the Celts chasing another point this off-season, just so they can focus on the big they've needed since Garnett was here.

Kyrie fell in their lap and didn't work out...they need to GET THEIR BIG, or bigs...without getting rid of talent.

And the Warriors are still the Warriors, so matching up with them with Kyrie is a fool's run.  You think they were humiliated by the Bucks...

[Roy H.]

Rozier isn't a better "fit" than Kyrie.  Rozier plays the same type of game, he just plays it at a vastly inferior level.  It's not like we're talking about a pass-first versus a scoring PG, or an elite pick-and-roll PG versus an iso-heavy player.  What skill (outside of perhaps rebounding) does Rozier have that Kyrie doesn't?

And seriously, we're arguing about Terry's production if he was suddenly given 44 minutes per game?  Terry ranked 11th on the team in points per minute.  He was behind Wanamaker and Theis.  "Per 44 minutes", Terry ranked 270th in the NBA.  He also ranked 400th (!!) in True Shooting Percentage.  What point is it that is trying to be argued?