The Brooklyn Nets are better off without Kyrie Irving (12-5 record without him) UPDATE:HE RESPONDS
- Thread starter Darealtwo1
- Start date
You referenced three-player lineups with Delly (5-7 mins per game against second units) to suggest that the 2015/16 Cavs were better with him than Kyrie, and you're accusing me of manipulating data?@Gil Scott-Heroin with one of the greatest manipulations of data in coli history
You're not going to read it all because you can't be bothered to account for context; you just have an agenda to push, and don't want to acknowledge when your flimsy, generalized, ABC, argument is exposed.THERES NO WAY YOU THINK PPL
ARE REALLY GONNA READ ALL THAT BULLshyt.
YOUR TACTIC IS TO JUST SPAM THE THREAD
AND HOPE PPL LEAVE YOU ALONE.
Keep telling us how Rozier is better than Kyrie.
@CHICAGO - "Kyrie's team wins without him which means they're better without him"
@Gil Scott-Heroin - *provides context and breaks down why they won, and why it doesn't mean they're better without him*
@CHICAGO - "I'm not going to read anything that debunks my argument; I only have an agenda to push"
@Gil Scott-Heroin - *provides context and breaks down why they won, and why it doesn't mean they're better without him*
@CHICAGO - "I'm not going to read anything that debunks my argument; I only have an agenda to push"
Why can't you respond to something this concise, @CHICAGO?They aren't built to win games, in the context of, they're without Durant and the significant percentage cap he takes up. That doesn't mean I'm saying they're going to go 0-82. Kyrie shouldn't be given a hard time for them losing; he should only be given a hard time for not performing and not trying to put his team in the best position of winning.
Anyone with any cotdamn sense who's without an agenda would scale him the same way.
The only good team they've beaten over this stretch is the Celtics (they've also lost to the Celtics and Pacers - the only two good teams they've played), and like I said above, any team can be beaten on any given night. There's no reason why they can't beat teams like the Bulls, Hornets, Knicks, Cavs etc, who have comparable talent and/or structure and experience - all those teams aren't built to win games either.
Tell me, do you think this Nets squad (without Kyrie) could beat teams like the Rockets on the regular?
Better yet, if those are too many lines for you to reply to, just answer the bold.
KevCo
Bond's gun spoke once....
As a celtics fan...dont get your hopes up
I'm arguing from the same position that you're in. If I'm a troll that makes you a troll too, dumbass.
That '18/'19 Nets squad, their competition, and their schedule, is different from this season.
This is the problem with y'all cats, you don't ever look beneath the surface of shyt; all y'all look at is wins and losses with no framework of how they occurred. You cant compare the two, especially over such drastic different sample sizes of games. You can't expect Kyrie and the Nets to have it all figured out within the first 5-10 games (and the fact that he's been dealing with a shoulder injury in these games), especially since the majority of those losses were against some of the best performing teams at the time.
The '18/'19 Nets had a run of games where they went:
0-8
And the funny thing is, the Nets started slowly last season too:
3-6.
Instead of just looking at the wins/losses as they stand, why not look deeper into why they lost? Why make such a generalized assumption on what you think is leading to them losing [Kyrie] without investigating what's actually happening? You have the nerve to say that I'm manipulating data, when that's what you're literally doing.
Can you speak on their games this season with and without Kyrie? Actually go into detail of why they lost/won with and without him.
Then they beat Boston?
So this is what your argument essentially comes down to, the notion that because they beat the Celtics (whilst ignoring they just lost to the Celtics the game before), that therefore means Kyrie's not as important/impactful as this unsubstantiated claim of folks think he is.
What you're basically saying is, if Kyrie was playing, the Nets wouldn't have beaten the Bulls, Knicks, Cavs, Hornets, Kings etc.
Last edited:
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
The Nets coach is better than yours. We are not worried about it. His shooting and iso game fits wihat the nets Are looking for. Spencer, Caris, and Kyrie all take turns in Kenny's offense. Watch the Nets
KevCo
Bond's gun spoke once....
I understand, but im just saying, be cautious cause Celtic fans felt the same way, one quarter away from the finals without kyrie.
Flex Luger
Job Is Finished
ARE REALLY GONNA READ ALL THAT BULLshyt.
YOUR TACTIC IS TO JUST SPAM THE THREAD
AND HOPE PPL LEAVE YOU ALONE.
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
Nah. The Nets low key have little pressure. They arent big news here and Kenny’s iso “let em score” offense fits him perfectly. Caris is averaging career highs across the board an gives Kyrie a chance to be a spot up shooter he hasnt been since playing with Bron in Cleveland.
One person’s garbage is another person’s treasure.
This is the dire state the board is in; nobody wants to have a genuine discussion around shyt. Anything that goes beyond 1-2 lines that are made simply to get daps is dismissed, cause nikkas can't be bothered to read.
And the opening post goes beyond just his time with the Nets.Once again...he PLAYS FOR THE NETS. The thread title is about the NETS RECORD.
he has NOT HURT the Nets!
my GOD...the abject stupidity.
Keep being sensitive.
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
“tHe oPenINg pOsT...”.
talk about how Kyrie impacts teams then say it’s not about the team, brehs.
