Of course he's good. I'm just not sure if you could include him in that top tier of point guards yet. It's unfair to try to rank a rookie amongst established veterans though. I think a better question is: Damian Lillard or '11-12 Kyrie Irving? If being a rookie who has only played 9 games can be an excuse for his turnover rate, then I don't think we're really fair to Lillard to try to rank him with veterans. As for players who could excel in a similar role, there are several that come to mind, but instead of naming them and starting a tangent besides the original point, I just want to make it clear that the point was that he's given an enormous amount of offensive responsibility. While that can be a burden, he's also lucky to have an entire team's offense running through him. On other, more established and balanced teams, there are always certain players that, if given a similar opportunity, could have nightly 20+ pt performances as well. That's always been the case in the NBA. Just look at people's perceptions of James Harden and how they've changed, for example.
Big deal. I could argue that Irving got more big-time experience against real competition in his one year playing at Duke than Damian got in 4 years playing at Weber St. In fact, that was one of the arguments against Lillard this summer. Maybe Irving's ceiling is way higher than Lillard's. If it is, it's not because he's younger, it's because he's better.
High turnover rates come with being a starting rookie point gaurd. They almost always drop significantly in year two or three. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Irving played like 11 games And typically the first 11 games in college are against trash teams So a 19 year old jumping into the nba vs a 23 year old
It amazes me how some of you seem to forget that Lillard has only played in NINE GAMES, like this is as good as he's going to get? You do realize that at one time it was common place for rookies to have played three or four years in college? Those guys still improved, why can't Lillard? He has gone from playing in the Big Sky to playing in the NBA. Can you imagine, for a minute, the disparity in talent between those two organizations? In college he was going against guys that were barely a cut above high school, now he's being guarded by All-Stars, yet he's still averaging almost 20 ppg after nine games. Also, if you want to compare Irving and Lillard: Irving's rookie numbers - 18.5 ppg, 5.4 apg, 3.7 rpg, and 46.9% FG/ 39.9% three point Lillard's rookie numbers - 19.3 ppg, 6.4 apg, 3.3 rpg, and 43.9% FG/39.7% three point I suspect Lillard's shooting percentages will go up as he grows more comfortable. I also think his assist numbers will go up, as he has Aldridge and Batum to pass to. I don't think Irving is clearly better than Lillard. His only advantage is that he has played in the league for a full year.
I know, and for a rookie, he's actually been a pretty efficient ball handler, but if we're going to talk about where he ranks now, I don't think you can have that rookie asterisk next to his name.
You know who played four years of college? Steve Nash. You know who else? Gary Payton. One more? Brandon Roy.
And Irving basically went from playing high schoolers to nba-ers with no offseason Rubio played minimal minutes in the euro league and jumped in with no offseason
What does that have to do with anything? If anything that hurts your argument. Lillard put up 27 on a night when Aldridge scored 29 and Batum scored 35. Do you mean to tell me that Irving, who is averaging 24 ppg this season, could do that much scoring with two other 20 ppg scorers on offense?
Sorry. Let me know when rubio shoots better than 36% from the field and has a PER higher than 15. After looking at those stats i misspoke earlier. Lillard>>>Rubio seems more appropriate
Never said players that play four years of college suck I'm implying that of two guys of pretty equal talent, I'd take the 20 year old over the 23 year old
If they're better, they're better; I'm ostensibly an adult and can handle the news that my guy isn't t3h b3st. But I'm not swayed by the 4-year argument meaning his ceiling is low.
Rubio could go 0/6 and have a bigger impact on the game than most point guards People look at shot blocking but perimeter defense is so underrated and Rubio is top 5 in the league at keeping his guy in front of him He's also the 3rd best passer in the league behind Nash and rondo Rubios impact is way bigger than what the stats show Watch the games before you pass judgements
