Quote Originally Posted by RedBlackAttack
Hmmm.

I must have missed where Curry burned Kyrie "play after play," seeing as he didn't exactly have an incredible game. He had an OK game... 26 points on 10-20 shooting (2-6 from 3), 8 assists, 2 rebounds, 1 steal, 4 turnovers and was a +4... he had 22 points after regulation.

Kyrie had 23 points on 10-22, 6 assists, 7 rebounds, 4 steals, 2 blocks and was a team-high +5.

Just sayin'... for a guy who was allegedly burned, the numbers dont jive. You can say statistics don't matter, but Curry is capable of going off for 30-40 points against any defense. 26 points and a 2:1 A/TO ratio in a game that went an extra period does not indicate that the Cavs' defense was a turnstile until Delly started playing 40 minutes a night.

The other thing is this... Kyrie took over that game offensively for stretches, which was something the Cavs badly needed once GS figured out that LeBron was really the only guy on the floor they needed to guard. The success they had in Game 2 was not sustainable and pretty much everyone knew it.

If your point is that the Cavs couldn't have at least won 2 games with Kyrie in the lineup, I wholeheartedly disagree. The series was basically over when he went down.
That is not what I am saying. I'm saying that we can't assume that it would automatically be much more competitive on the Cavs part, because what they lost in Irving's offense they gained in Delly's defense, which disrupted the entire Warriors offense. It wasn't like the Cavs suddenly got significantly worse without Irving and that was the reason they lost, because they in fact won the next 2 games without him on the backs of their defense, which Delly was the catalyst for.