Kyrie Irving

Ive said some dumb stuff and made some dumb threads. I will freely admit that. However the kyrie, rich mans boobie comment is by far the most idiotic comment in the history of the board. The person who said it should be ashamed of themselves. This clip puts it perfectly:

Jon said:

Kyrie's shooting efficiency is out of this world for a rookie PG, but a rich man's Daniel Gibson isn't one of the best PGs in the league. He needs to keep improving his actual PG skills (running plays, setting up others, delivering the ball where guys can catch it, etc, etc) to get up in the top echelon.

Click to expand...

All right, this is your exact quote, January 25th, 2012.

What did you mean by it if you weren't referring to Kyrie as this "rich man's Daniel Gibson"? You start your post with how good Kyrie is at shooting, for a rookie point guard. But then you state a "rich man's Daniel Gibson" isn't this top 5 point guard?

I can't even figure what you're trying to prove at this point... and I hardly want to go back and forth with you, since my posting isn't what it used to be...

The Human Q-Tip said:

Of course there are going to be games against better teams where he is shut down, or has a bad game. But it's not the result that was so impressive. It was his ice-cold demeanor, and absolutely no hint that the stage was too big for him. That was a legitimate worry for us coming into his very first playoff appearances.

Click to expand...

I'm more concerned with his decision making when faced against tougher opponents, his legs get tired, and his shot starts to short rim, and the opponent has a rim protector.

Everybody knows what Kyrie can do when he's on.

Given our history, I get the relief that Kyrie didn't wilt under pressure. Kevin might have, but one thing James did was make sure that Kevin was involved and kept getting touches. 5 of 14 isn't very impressive, but the 19 & 12 spared Kevin a lot of finger pointing. Kyrie doesn't have to worry about that kind of stuff, but there are a lot better tests to come.

rabman_gold said:

All right, this is your exact quote, January 25th, 2012.

What did you mean by it if you weren't referring to Kyrie as this "rich man's Daniel Gibson"? You start your post with how good Kyrie is at shooting, for a rookie point guard. But then you state a "rich man's Daniel Gibson" isn't this top 5 point guard?

Click to expand...

I meant exactly what I said. What's so hard to parse? Kyrie needed to improve his PG skills before he deserved to be mentioned with the top PGs in the league.

gourimoko said:

I'm not willing to venture a guess as to why you think the way you do.. How could I possibly know something like that?

Click to expand...

That's the neat thing. You don't have to venture a guess. You either accept that when someone tells you what their thinking is what their thinking ... or you believe them to be a liar.

And that's why I can't get beyond this point with you.

Jon said:

That's the neat thing. You don't have to venture a guess. You either accept that when someone tells you what their thinking is what their thinking ... or you believe them to be a liar.

And that's why I can't get beyond this point with you.

Click to expand...

I think that's a false dichotomy.

One can not believe what another person is telling them by default without assuming they are maliciously or intently trying deliberately deceive them.

In a debate, one doesn't necessarily "believe" the opposing viewpoint or even their own, at either the beginning, middle or end of discourse. In critical thinking, one doesn't even believe his own viewpoint by default, assumes it's false, and attempts to prove that it is true. This is a fundamental basis to positivism, and should be self-evident. I thought this was a given.

This isn't about who is "lying" or who isn't, but it's about providing rational, logical lines of reasoning and applying critical thinking to our own conclusions.

"Belief" has no basis in this discussion as far as I'm concerned. Why do I need to "believe" anything when there is observational data and empirical evidence to support one conclusion or the other? There is no room for "belief."

Again, I think this is so far beside the points that I made, and again I notice your focus on this one non-issue rather than addressing the points I made earlier.

Sorry for this long post, but I just want to be clear; I am not accusing you of being a liar. As I said earlier, I'm not one to venture a guess as to your intent. But more importantly and to the subject of the thread, I do think you are dead wrong on the facts and your claim that Tony Parker was a Top 5 point guard but Kyrie Irving is not makes no rational sense.

Jon is suffering a little bit from Bill Simmons syndrome, too preoccupied that Kyrie doesn't play like a "traditional point guard", like that somehow brings him down a few pegs.

shoes22 said:

Jon is suffering a little bit from Bill Simmons syndrome, too preoccupied that Kyrie doesn't play like a "traditional point guard", like that somehow brings him down a few pegs.

Click to expand...

But no one says this about Tony Parker, Russell Westbrook, or Damian Lillard... All of whom are basically equivalent (+/- 1 apg) to Kyrie Irving in the assists department over their careers.

Kyrie, last season, was actually in the top-half of point guards with respect to assists; and in the top 10 for ast/tov.

It seems odd..

winner0274 said:

I'm pretty sure everyone disagreed with your implication that Kyrie is a rich man's Boobie Gibson. It seems you're the only person here that is unable to recognize what a phenomenal talent Kyrie is. Damn shame because he is a pleasure to watch and there is no guarantee we ever see another Cavalier who is this talented in our lifetimes. Might as well enjoy it instead of incessantly nitpicking his game.

Click to expand...

Kyrie is a rich man's boobie Gibson only if LeBron is a rich mans Jeff green

This thread makes me want to bleach my eyes.

So is Kevin Love simply a rich mans Donyell Marshall?

Some posts in this thread feel like a rich man's RealGM

(not a compliment)

gourimoko said:

In a debate, one doesn't necessarily "believe" the opposing viewpoint or even their own, at either the beginning, middle or end of discourse.

Click to expand...

Wow, what a disconnect.

Of course I'm not asking you to accept my opinions, I'm asking you not to try to tell me what I meant.

So Kyrie Irving was really, really good yesterday you guys!


The brilliant handle and the finishing at the rim are things we've come to expect, but he's gotten so much better moving off the ball and using screens this year. Just a huge leap.

Not sure how he didnt laugh at reporters who asked him about "first playoff game jitters" in the postgame. Cant wait for Game 2.

Hydroponic3385 said:

Some posts in this thread feel like a rich man's RealGM

(not a compliment)

Click to expand...

Sounds like a compliment, lol, but I guess I have a higher opinion of RealGM than you do.

They have a Wall, Lillard, and Irving thread going on in their player comparison forum with plenty of good points coming from all sides with far less vitriol and trolling then seen in this thread.