Rozier is a "winner"

[celtics4ever33]

16 - 5 as a STARTER

Within 1 game of the FINALS

Starting all those games without golden boy Irving (not a dig on Irving since I believe we need him to win anything)

But still , what's the dig on Rozier? He's a "winner" , comparable to Smart.....where is the eye test guys? Or the stats guys

All the guy seems to do is win as a starter...

Him getting buried on the bench is unfair right?

He has averaged over 16 , 6, and 5 in those games shooting better than 45%, and 40% from the field with an INSANE turnover ratio.

Not to mention he is a winner with Smart by his side and not KYRIE IRVING
- - - - - -

[Silky]

21 games doing 16, 6 and 5 with 45 and 40%

35 games Kyrie is 23, 6.5 and 5 with 49 and 41%
last season was 60 games of 24.4, 5 and 4 with 49 and 41%

etc, etc

No one is gonna agree with you.

Rozier is a good 2nd tier pg, Kyrie is a superstar top tier pg

[RJ87]

Game 7 of the ECF. 2 pts on 2/14 shooting, including 0/10 from 3.

Winner.

[Donoghus]

Is this the Terry Rozier burner account?
 

[celtics4ever33]

Game 7 of the ECF. 2 pts on 2/14 shooting, including 0/10 from 3.

Winner.

Marcus Smart 1-10 , 0-4

So lets just blame Rozier........

just proved my point

[celtics4ever33]

21 games doing 16, 6 and 5 with 45 and 40%

35 games Kyrie is 23, 6.5 and 5 with 49 and 41%
last season was 60 games of 24.4, 5 and 4 with 49 and 41%

etc, etc

No one is gonna agree with you.

Rozier is a good 2nd tier pg, Kyrie is a superstar top tier pg

Funny, Rozier did it without IRVING, further proving my point, I love Irving by the way, it's not that Irving sucks or anything, it's that Rozier wins as a starter, yet is lauded as the worst player and should be dealt for peanuts.

[Jvalin]

Nah. Smart is a winner. Rozier is a score-first PG who needs the ball in his hands in order to maximize his effectiveness on offense. Smart isn't great off the ball either (on the offensive side of the ball), but his impact on the game is eye-popping in so many other ways.

[indeedproceed]

Game 7 of the ECF. 2 pts on 2/14 shooting, including 0/10 from 3.

Winner.

Wow, if you're just using Game 7, you must be really down on....(checks box score)...the whole rest of the roster?

[Donoghus]

Game 7 of the ECF. 2 pts on 2/14 shooting, including 0/10 from 3.

Winner.

Wow, if you're just using Game 7, you must be really down on....(checks box score)...the whole rest of the roster?

Not necessarily.

But I do think that if you're gonna come out and start singing the praises of a guy and labeling him a winner, you also have to look at the fact that Rozier (among others) laid a massive egg in the biggest game of his career and certainly didn't show being a "winner" in that instance. 

That has to play into this mythology.

[RJ87]

Game 7 of the ECF. 2 pts on 2/14 shooting, including 0/10 from 3.

Winner.

Marcus Smart 1-10 , 0-4

So lets just blame Rozier........

just proved my point

The title of the thread is "Rozier is a winner", no? Maybe when we get the "Smart is a winner", I'll pipe in on that.

Game 7 of the ECF. 2 pts on 2/14 shooting, including 0/10 from 3.

Winner.

Wow, if you're just using Game 7, you must be really down on....(checks box score)...the whole rest of the roster?

Just joining the forum wave of coming to rash conclusions based on small sample sizes of my own choosing. Just trying to fit in.

[celtics4ever33]

Game 7 of the ECF. 2 pts on 2/14 shooting, including 0/10 from 3.

Winner.

Wow, if you're just using Game 7, you must be really down on....(checks box score)...the whole rest of the roster?

Not necessarily.

But I do think that if you're gonna come out and start singing the praises of a guy and labeling him a winner, you also have to look at the fact that Rozier (among others) laid a massive egg in the biggest game of his career and certainly didn't show being a "winner" in that instance. 

That has to play into this mythology.

Actually you are further proving my point

The mythology is the other way around. Its that nobody gets fairly treated. I dont care if you want to trash on Rozier, but trash on the others.

Went the same way with Paul Pierce who also sucked in 2 games 7's , but somehow Ray Allen gets trashed for game "7" bad games


When you have to pick game 7 , one win from the finals to discredit this post, it shows who is reaching, and it aint me.

[celtics4ever33]

Game 7 of the ECF. 2 pts on 2/14 shooting, including 0/10 from 3.

Winner.

Marcus Smart 1-10 , 0-4

So lets just blame Rozier........

just proved my point

The title of the thread is "Rozier is a winner", no? Maybe when we get the "Smart is a winner", I'll pipe in on that.

Game 7 of the ECF. 2 pts on 2/14 shooting, including 0/10 from 3.

Winner.

Wow, if you're just using Game 7, you must be really down on....(checks box score)...the whole rest of the roster?

Just joining the forum wave of coming to rash conclusions based on small sample sizes of my own choosing. Just trying to fit in.

Sorry for joining in on the fun. Didn't know only a set group of people can do it,,,,,,of course just to fit narrative. Im just calling it how it is.

[slamtheking]

when I saw the title, I expected to see this posted repeatedly

[Donoghus]

Game 7 of the ECF. 2 pts on 2/14 shooting, including 0/10 from 3.

Winner.

Wow, if you're just using Game 7, you must be really down on....(checks box score)...the whole rest of the roster?

Not necessarily.

But I do think that if you're gonna come out and start singing the praises of a guy and labeling him a winner, you also have to look at the fact that Rozier (among others) laid a massive egg in the biggest game of his career and certainly didn't show being a "winner" in that instance. 

That has to play into this mythology.

Actually you are further proving my point

The mythology is the other way around. Its that nobody gets fairly treated. I dont care if you want to trash on Rozier, but trash on the others.

Went the same way with Paul Pierce who also sucked in 2 games 7's , but somehow Ray Allen gets trashed for game "7" bad games


When you have to pick game 7 , one win from the finals to discredit this post, it shows who is reaching, and it aint me.

You're the one turning this into a single player & the concept of winning.   You pigeonholed yourself a bit with your original post. 

If you want to isolate a single player and call him a winner, you can't just disregard the biggest game of his career and how much of a letdown he was in it.

There's been plenty of trashing of others on this board.  Gordon Hayward, Kyrie, & even Horford. Just about everyone has been bashed on these boards one time or another or consistently.  Take the blinders off.   Your apparent binky isn't the only one who gets thrashed on these boards.

[RJ87]

Game 7 of the ECF. 2 pts on 2/14 shooting, including 0/10 from 3.

Winner.

Wow, if you're just using Game 7, you must be really down on....(checks box score)...the whole rest of the roster?

Not necessarily.

But I do think that if you're gonna come out and start singing the praises of a guy and labeling him a winner, you also have to look at the fact that Rozier (among others) laid a massive egg in the biggest game of his career and certainly didn't show being a "winner" in that instance. 

That has to play into this mythology.

Exactly. Personally, the idea of naming a player a "winner" - or contrarily a "loser" - is silly. It disregards all other factors in the name of placing a narrative on a player one likes or dislikes. Is Devin Booker a loser? Is Karl Anthony Towns?

What constitutes a winner? Is it regular season performance? Playoff performance? Can you pull a disappearing act in the biggest game of your career and still be considered a winner?