08-26-2025, 12:37 AM
Your comments said: "Do you think Kyrie at age 34 will still be in his prime? ... I don't think he will ever be what he was." -- and similar.
Why did I take from such comments the thought that you feel Kyrie will certainly have an extreme decline at age 34? Or that he will fall off the cliff at age 34? Or that he must be injured for life, then?
Well, how about considering what your words imply are definitely coming for Kyrie. And then consider his baseline, and compare it -- in 2024-25 up to the injury, he was playing at an All-NBA level at age 33. And when we do that, my responses did speak squarely to your assertions.
If Kyrie's age 34 is bringing a player who is clearly NOT possibly going to be a prime-caliber player (the clear assertion of your question), and who will not EVER be what he was (your very words), how does he get there without his game falling off a cliff, since he was just as good as a player can be at 33? You have him going from All-NBA level of play, to a guy "out of his prime" (which is the common terminology for a guy whose game has taken a big step backwards and is fading), in just one year. That's not a small step. Nor is it a minor development for a player to NEVER get back to what he was (your words) after an injury break, and either that's falling off a cliff due to "age related decline" as you word it, or due to the idea he will never really recover from the injury ("injured for life").
Or else, of course, you might want to walk back what you said in the first place -- if you don't mean that, say something else. But if you meant it, then own the implications that come with it.
I can go back and show the same thing on the rest of the things you raised. You make the claim, then when I run with it and speak to the idea and its clear implications, you claim you never said "that" and go even further to claim I am putting words in your mouth - even though "that" was exactly what your words conveyed. I would have dropped this a long time ago, but you keep pushing the claim I am putting things in your mouth, and nope not true at all.
Why did I take from such comments the thought that you feel Kyrie will certainly have an extreme decline at age 34? Or that he will fall off the cliff at age 34? Or that he must be injured for life, then?
Well, how about considering what your words imply are definitely coming for Kyrie. And then consider his baseline, and compare it -- in 2024-25 up to the injury, he was playing at an All-NBA level at age 33. And when we do that, my responses did speak squarely to your assertions.
If Kyrie's age 34 is bringing a player who is clearly NOT possibly going to be a prime-caliber player (the clear assertion of your question), and who will not EVER be what he was (your very words), how does he get there without his game falling off a cliff, since he was just as good as a player can be at 33? You have him going from All-NBA level of play, to a guy "out of his prime" (which is the common terminology for a guy whose game has taken a big step backwards and is fading), in just one year. That's not a small step. Nor is it a minor development for a player to NEVER get back to what he was (your words) after an injury break, and either that's falling off a cliff due to "age related decline" as you word it, or due to the idea he will never really recover from the injury ("injured for life").
Or else, of course, you might want to walk back what you said in the first place -- if you don't mean that, say something else. But if you meant it, then own the implications that come with it.
I can go back and show the same thing on the rest of the things you raised. You make the claim, then when I run with it and speak to the idea and its clear implications, you claim you never said "that" and go even further to claim I am putting words in your mouth - even though "that" was exactly what your words conveyed. I would have dropped this a long time ago, but you keep pushing the claim I am putting things in your mouth, and nope not true at all.