Bonn1997 wrote:mrKnickShot wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:mrKnickShot wrote:CashMoney wrote:mrKnickShot wrote:ChuckBuck wrote:In 3 years, I'd love to have K Love, but seems like it'd be a luxury to have with Chandler here. Reload with Kyrie Irving instead to lead the finest backcourt in Irving and Shumpert in the NBA!
If you had a choice, who would you rather have KLove or Chandler?
KLove for sure. The guy doesn't block many shots but he rebounds, is solid from the line, can knock down a 3 and has a POST GAME.
Coach K came to the same conclusion.
You mean because he gave Love 5 more mpg than an injured Tyson?
Uh no.
Because Tyson did not fit into their offense because he thought it might not be better to play 4 on 5.
Right, and your evidence for that assertion is that he played Love 5 more mpg than the injured Tyson.
17 vs 11 minutes does say a lot, so to answer your question, Yes.
Also, crunch time minutes make a difference as well.
Chandler was unfortunately underutilized. Krzyzewski danced around questions regarding Chandler’s minimized role, saying teams went small and the matchups weren’t right. But against Spain, with the big Gasol brothers and Serge Ibaka, Chandler’s size was desperately needed, but Coach K turned to Kevin Love because he’s a better perimeter shooter, better defensive rebounder and less prone to fouls.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/teamwork_was_not_on_olympic_agenda_DjvFlmsvRwXTLpuv8UmnZI#ixzz23cylqUt6