Kyrie is unbelievable. He's young, he's surprisingly big for his position, and there isn't anything he can't do. There aren't any holes in his game right now, and most importantly, Kyrie has that ever so elusive killer instinct that will make him a superstar. Mark my word, Kyrie will be the best player in the NBA in 5 years.
follow me @TruenoPanda - lets talk Pacers!
Now this is unbelievable to me. I thought it was Paul George hands down, I was shocked to see the results. I live in Ohio so I get every Cavs game, Kyrie Irving has turned into one the most overrated players in the game, and I love his game offensively. But his defense is lacking big time, while PG is one of the best defenders in the game at his position. Kyries team is near the bottom of the East, and they had their own Joakim Noah for half of the season thus far in Varejo, also have solid role players in Waiters, Gee, and Thompson. Kyries court vision is also lacking considering he is a Point Guard. He is an unbelievable ball handler and scorer, but wow I am shocked a group of Pacer fans would take Kyrie over Paul George, absolutely shocked. This shows how much people only watch the ball when they watch basketball games.
True. Defense wins championships supposedly so I will stick with PG. Bigs take a little longer to develope.
PG was still growing as of last year and getting used to his size. Increased strength will come with time. Plus
he is driven to win.
anyone else 3 years into the league or less and I would say PG, but kyrie is on another level from everyone else
It's a tough choice for who is better. But I'll say this. Both are locks to be on the 2014 U.S. World Championship team, and they'll probably be starting. Irving and Harden in the backcourt, with George, Griffin, and either Aldridge, Brook Lopez, or Anthony Davis at center.
I think Kyrie is the obvious answer & there's no comparison between them. He has "superstar" written all over him.
Pg all day long.kyrie is alright,but i think he is little bit over rated for now.in our system you need wings that can score.besides hes not great assist man.in our system hell be a sligthly better g hill.
And comparing Kyrie to George Hill is absolutely insane. Irving was better than George Hill the second he was drafted, and that's in any system.
I guess your right about the system,but some coaches are stubborn about the way they run their teams.but i wasnt comparing kyrie to hill i was ju st saying with our weapons hed just be a spot up shooter with hes lack of passing.but maybe with better talent the assists goes up.id stil take pg because i think he is better.besides he was number 1 and pg was 10 hes supposed to be better.
I think its no question kyrie at this moment is better then george. Would pacers trade george for kyrie? No.. would cavs trade kyrie for George? Hell no.. with how both teams are built there the perfect fit for what they got goin on right now.. i would say there both untradeable
I think it's awesome that we even have the ability to make this a serious debate. That means PG is really damn good. The homer in me says I'd take Paul but I'm on record as saying Kyrie is my favorite point guard in the association already.
If you are asking me who I would take first if I was starting a franchise, Paul or Kyrie, I think it is obviously, Paul.. In the history of the NBA, there have been only a handful of Elite PGs to lead their teams to championships. If you eliminate the PGs who were teamed up with ELITE #1 overall pick Big Men, the list becomes only a handful in the NBAs history... PG is a phenomenol defender with above avg. Scoring potential. He can guard 3 positions at an elite level. I think defense deserves the edge over offense, as it "wins championships"...
This vote should be closer IMO.
Kyrie Irving is a tremendous scorer but what else does he do well?
He is a average passer at the PG position and DOES NOT play DEFENSE at all. Watch on league pass if you dont believe me. One of the bigger liabilities at the point guard position defensively.
On the other hand, what doesn't Paul George do well?
I'm not saying I would take George over Irving but its awfully close since Irving is poor defensively and isn't that great at passing the rock. Amazing scorer though.
As official PD George Hill apologist, I have to explain why I'd much rather have Hill than Kyrie Irving.
When it comes to the makeup of a contending team, it is so much easier to contain a pointguard than nearly every other player on the court.
It's the reason George Hill actually outplayed Kyrie in two prior games this season. Dynamic points like Kyrie will always have that problem of being short, and when they play defenses like the Pacers which you see in the playoffs on the regular, they'll get slowed because of shot blockers and limiting three pointers.
Vogels D limits three's at all costs so Hill went over the top on PnR's every time forcing Irving to drive either for the open (low quality) jumper or drive to the basket to somehow find a way to shoot over Roy Hibbert. That's just not a recipe for success.
On the other hand, in nearly every system Hill is a low option that requires minimal defensive attention. As such a physically imposing point guard, he'll always find opportunities to score a reletively efficient 15 points no matter what. He's longer than the opposing points, he's stronger and he'll always have a few open looks from the outside. (because the team is focused on stopping PG, Granger and West).
Kyrie will always dominate the regular season but come playoff time he's going to struggle to score, unless another major dynamic player can take the pressure off. Is that going to happen when Kyrie is paid huge max contracts? Cleveland will hope so, but we'll have to see.
Meanwhile, Hill has played with Granger, West, George, Ginobili, Duncan, and Parker. He'll always have the opportunity to play with those guys on that level his entire career.
Now when you spend your money on a dynamic wing like Paul George, even though he's not on the scoring level of Kyrie, when it comes to slowing down PG in the playoffs it becomes a much difficult task. You're not going to limit open looks from the outside because he's 6'10. You're going to have trouble limiting his looks in the lane because he's 6'10". He's not quite as skilled yet, but really the biggest limit to PG's scoring is himself. It's not like defenders can do a whole lot to slow Paul George down.
This is the reason I'll take an average PG like Hill/Conley over superstar points. I'll spend my money towards obtaining a superstar wing...
With that said, Cleveland really has no choice, and it isn't as if it is impossible for them to turn that team into true contenders. Of course they can. I just think it is easier the way the Pacers are going about it.
Pretty good arguments here. Anyway, here's my take on this:
PG and Kyrie are pretty good young players right now that may turn special in the near future. Both have their advantages over the other, it just depends now on how you build the team with them as one of your main core.
PG has one of the really rare physical gifts for a wing player, and that's why he was drafted so high. He's very tall for a 2-3 wing position, very mobile and athletic, and has very long wingspan that gives him the defensive advantage over other counterparts. It just needs time to develop a player him into one of the premier wing guys in the league as it took him 3 years plus the loss of Danny this year. If you have the time and the ability to invest on a player like him, who has the potential to be a better overall player than Kyrie, then he's the better pick of the two.
Kyrie on the other hand is holding one of the two highly-valued positions in the NBA (Center being the other). And practically he's NBA ready by the time he was drafted at a very young age compared to PG. He just needs some fine tuning for him to reach CP3-level of success. He may not have the elite-level court vision yet, but his overall offense is already superstar level. Can you imagine a player like him on the current Pacers squad? He'll play PnR or PnP all day long with West or Hibbert and will be the money play on offense. If you want a more ready player then Kyrie is the better choice. Of course, the concern always with Kyrie is his durability, but it's a risk you want to take if you want a point guard that may have the potential to be on par with CP3 in the near future. BTW, CP3 had some troubling injuries back then in NO and right now he's playing one of his best career years as a pro even if he's missing some games this season.
Now, if I will take one of them to build my team, I will take PG instead of Kyrie simply because of rare physical gifts that may not come until another decade. It's always a risk to bank on raw players as compared to developed guys like Kyrie, but developing raw but physically-gifted players like PG can reward you a league-changing superstar in the future. Think of guys like KG, TMac, Kobe, LeBron (a special case of being physically gifted but at the same time already developed to be NBA ready) and JO (just a few seasons, but still...) are just a few examples. Just remember that rewards from these kinds of guys can only be reaped with patience if you are a GM or coach.
Like someone said earlier, when it comes to an Young Wing with Superstar Potential and a Young Point Guard with Superstar Potential, you take the Wing every time, for the simple fact: Name the last time a dynamic Point Guard has won a title. Tony Parker, maybe? Other than that, it's all 2's and 3's that are the guys winning most titles.
I think if there were a 3rd option of I like both equally, that would be the winning option. As I had said, I may pull the trigger on the deal but I'd be scared crazy because PG could become an MVP type 2/3, which is better than an MVP type point 1, especially with the Pacers current system. I only really prefer Kyrie because I think he's a safer superstar pick.
"It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."
----------------- Reggie Miller
I hate you for making me vote against Paul George.
More wings win rings because there's more wings. It's just standard probability.
Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk 2
There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.
I kind of agree with this, but I think the way the question is asked makes me feel better about it. If I had to pick 1 to build around, I would pick Irving. But I think you would have to think hard about it because it's George does as many "how did he do that?" things on defense as Irving does on offense.
But if we were to trade George for Irving, would I be happy about it? No way. At least not for a while and I learned to love Irving. But as a fan I believe I am entitled to give the edge to the player that I've grow to enjoy watching already.
I could be going crazy here, but I don't understand how anybody can really knock on Kyrie's court vision or passing. You've got to remember, he's starting alongside Gee (a d-leaguer at best) Waiters, who is too raw to be a consistent threat (but I do think will be good in the future) and Thompson who is just...Thompson. Kyrie has great synergy with Varejao, but has only had Varejao for a grand total of about 25 games this whole season. Now he's stuck trying to pass the ball to Zeller, who should absolutely not be starting by any stretch of the imagination. That's a far below average starting lineup and is ultimately quite incapable of taking advantage of Kyrie's ability to pass. We saw the Cavs immediately improve with the Memphis trade, and Speights developing quick synergy with Irving as well. I guess my point is, when you're constantly trying to carry your team and don't have even average talent/skill playing alongside you, your court vision and passing will suffer.
I will agree that Irving is an average defender at best, but I don't think its a glaring hole in his game. It just appears to be that way in comparison to his offensive game, which is sick. When you're at the caliber Kyrie is, people are going to nit pick, and that's quite honestly the only flaw people can realistically draw out. I'd personally attribute that partially to his age, and I do think his defense will improve immensely. Furthermore, I don't recall him doing particularly badly, and I don't really recall him getting lit up or absolutely demolished by anybody.
Disclaimer: this is just an opinion
follow me @TruenoPanda - lets talk Pacers!
There is some truth to this... However, here is some more simple math for you... Goal is 10ft high. The majority of players are really tall, they protect the rim. There are generally 8 players taller and bigger than my PG and one guarding who is the same size. The evidence shows that the effect ELITISM has on the game in terms of overall relevence of winning championships goes from big to small. It is easier to impact the game the bigger you are because you get to start closer to the basket and you generally tower over everyone. PGs need more help. They understand this, which is why they are the ones who generally have to stalk big men to play with them. Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Gary Payton, the list is full of coat-tail riding PGs. Big men don't search out to play with ball dominating PGs with limited vision and defense. To be considered an ELITE PG you've got to be able to effect the game in a multitude of ways than just filling it up. Kyrie is very good, don't know if he will become ELITE. George is the same, but his more polished tools and his versatility are the difference. Spo understood the advantage that size and defensive versatility brings to your chances of winning. Championship PGs are a dime a dozen...
Last edited by *astrisk*; 02-19-2013 at 01:48 AM.