Correct, which is why he is unquestionably a better floor raiser. But you and everybody else who once salivated over Kyrie when he was a Cav are absolutely lying to yourselves if you're positing that current Garland can do what Kyrie did in the '16 Finals. That's where the "ceiling raiser" argument begins and ends.
Just unproven in the playoffs. We say maybe Garland isn't that ceiling raiser yet we don't really know. I thought his clutchness was questionable, but he has been finding ways to win close games that they were losing earlier in the year.
Maybe people will roast me for this, but Sexton and Kyrie are closer than Garland and Kyrie and all the same criticisms people levy of Sexton can be used on Kyrie. The area where Sexton is better is he is able to admit his weaknesses and he actually works on them.
Need a bucket from nowhere, give it to that guy. Need someone to run the team and control the pace for a whole game, give it to Garland.
No doubt we needed Kyrie for the chip and he brought a very good complement to LBJ, but even looking at their 3rd year numbers, I think you'd have to think pretty hard about which guy you take.
For me, no question. Despite scoring only 28 per 100 poss instead of 30, I take Garland. He is just affects the game in more ways. His ability to orchestrate is more valuable than tough shot making IMO. He also plays defense. He probably isn't a #1 scoring option like Kyrie, but he is without a doubt a better floor raiser.
I'm not even the biggest Garland fan, but I can't deny what I am seeing. HE may not be as skilled as Kyrie, but his mental game is ahead and it has grown enormously just in since Sexton went down. 2 months ago I preferred Ricky ending the game, and now I believe Garland has outstripped him again.