The fate of the Celtics will not be deemed Hayward's burden because he's not the best player, or at least not the best scorer. This will only happen if Kyrie decides to become a passing point guard and let Hayward shoot which won't happen. Plus Hayward is not giving equal or greater value than Bradley and Crowder alone because that means he'd have to average 30 while playing lock down D. He AND Kyrie along with the young players have to do that.You said Kyrie is the biggest change. He's not. Hayward is. The addition of Heyward is why people are saying this is a better roster than last year when that move is responsible for the loss of both Crowder(taking his PT) and Bradley(wouldn't sign for 300k less so they could keep him). He has to provide equal or greater value than both of them in order for him to be a true improvement. Tatum and Brown are still developing so he'll need to compensate for the drop-off due to their inexperience.
Kyrie has a completely different team than the one IT had last year. 4/5 primary starters are gone as well as some of their bench. If he does what he's been doing then he shouldn't shoulder the blame if they "regress", since the regression would be based on what the franchise did, not what was done with the same roster. I do believe that he needs to step up and show why he wanted his "own" team, but the fate of the Celtics this season is in the hands of Hayward, not Kyrie.
Boston moved Bradley to afford Hayward but Crowder wasn't going to lose too many minutes with him, Hayward can play the 2 or Crowder would be a small 4. Crowder is gone because of Kyrie. What you're saying may be true if Hayward remained the best player the Celtics acquired in the offseason, but he didn't. Kyrie, upon request and desire to "be the man", shook up the roster even further. He's there to replace their best player so the onus is on him.
The media won't talk about the front office too much because the front office isn't on the court.





.


