Andrew McCeltic wrote:Anyone know advanced stats on the team's field goal percentages and open looks with and without Kyrie? My eye says that even if he doesn't set up assists, he's tremendously good as a decoy, and at drawing and rearranging defenses with his fluidity with the ball. His style has a net positive effect in a way IT's scoring didn't, because our whole offense had to be designed to get Thomas going in certain positions, firing him out like a pinball.
Some don't mind if Marcus walks if he costs too much. I am thinking the same way with Kyrie except for the losing him for nothing part. Isaiah and Turner blossomed as Celtics because there was often no one else capable of keeping things moving forward. Avery Bradley started racking up points when he was handed scoring responsibilities. With Tatum, Brown and Hayward as natural scorers, there is no longer a need to have a scoring dominant pg.
Kyrie is greatness but he is injury prone with a few holes in his game.
I agree Kyrie was a definite upgrade over Isaiah. He doesn't barrel into opponents and is less likely to be abused as a defender. His injury history is alarming. He could become the next Derrick Rose. Even if he stays healthy for the rest of his prime, I'm not sure he ever improves at defense and ball distribution. Kyrie getting a supermax would be extremely risky, imho. I know champions need great players, but Tatum and Brown are looking very truthful in that regard. Hayward is already on the books with a max deal.
And I just find it outrageous that while Rozier and Smart are bleeding green fighting to keep the season going, people are discussing which of the two needs to go. Maybe Kyrie is the one. I say bring them all back and table the topic until there is more of a sample size to evaluate. No one knows and 2017-18 is still in play.
