therealbig3 wrote:MrDollarBills wrote:therealbig3 wrote:That's the difference between a top 10 player like Lillard and a top 20 player like Kyrie.
Lillard has his full squad, Kyrie doesn't. Come on.
And Kyrie's team isn't barely hanging on to a playoff spot.
Lillard is still facing more defensive attention than Kyrie is. If Kyrie had his full squad, the comparison doesn't make sense, because you'd be comparing a 3rd option to a 1st option.
And you and I both know any comparison of the Blazers and Nets overall means nothing when talking about Lillard vs Kyrie. Our record is very much a result of having a deep team that can win when 1 or 2 of our stars are out, because that's been the case for most of the year. Lillard hasn't had that luxury.
What I have been noticing is that whenever Kyrie is on his own, this team has a hard time winning. I don't think he can do what Lillard has done in Portland for the last several years now. We're now 5-5 when it's just Kyrie (if we include the Miami game when Durant only played 4 minutes).
Put another way, I think we're barely clinging to a playoff spot in the East if it was just Kyrie by himself having to lead this team for an entire season. OTOH, I think we win at least 45 games (in a full season) if it was just Harden or just Durant having to lead this team for an entire season.
IDK, watching Lillard out there, it just became clear to me that Kyrie is just not much of a floor raiser. He can be great if you surround him with other great talent, but that's true for a lot of the top players.
I think Dame is better, but I really don't think most of this is true. Most games, Kyrie will get you 27/5/7 on 60 TS%>>>>, but he's been slumping a bit, partially as a result of regression to the mean (he was shooting 61% from long-two range through 41 games or so) and partially, possibly due to his fasting. The Nets also don't have playable defensive center to go against Nurkic or Kanter (who I think both ate against them) with Claxton out and they didn't shoot well from three and most of the team was on a second night of a back to back. It's not really some extreme thing. This team is deep in some ways, but until recently, lacked a backup guard and when Claxton is out of the lineup, they lack a good starting center. Losing to the Blazers on the second night of a back to back isn't some wild thing. Truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Most games, Kyrie will play a notch or two better than he played this game, and the Nets will hit more threes and the Blazers won't be able to guard them, and it can be a toss-up. This Nets team is not a deep squad without at least one of the other Nets stars. They didn't have a backup guard until recently, Claxton's been out the last like 5 games
Everything can't be a self-contained indictment of him at this point. He's played the most games without one of the other Nets stars, and he's played the most without so have to consider sample size. He's been incredible this season, with or without one of the other guys on the floor. He's won them a bunch of games. The idea that he was some awful floor raiser was always overblown and based on his record on the Cavs when he was 19 or 20 and then on his time with a team that basically went to the very top of the lottery once Lebron left the final time, but people keep using that for a reference point and everything is built off that flawed idea. He was great in Boston and made a big impact, and the Nets have the No. 1 seed with Kyrie playing the most games. He's been the 1b all year due to injuries, and he's arguably the main or second main reason the Nets have the record they do. It's very hard to be able to adapt your style to different players and 34 different starting lineups, but he's done it very easily. Being 5-5 really isn't a daming thing. They win the next game without KD or Harden, they're 6-5, etc. I could see if they'd lost by far most of their games, but they're generally competitive.
Now, I actually think KD could take this nets team to around 50 wins if it's a regular season and Harden as well, but they're simply better players. Maybe they're more like 48 wins, but I could also see Kyrie getting this team to 42-44 wins. Maybe just make Claxton healthy all year, keep Blake Griffin on, add a decent backup point guard and a replacement level SG and that'd be pretty good. But that's like what? 7th seed? That's still pretty good.
. Every game is a playoff level for us and yet we got that first seed.
