No problem! Glad to help.
Cycles and PBR workflows are actually quite different on the backend, that's why using PBR maps (metallic/roughness) in Cycles can be difficult to get right. What makes it even worse, is that some of the maps use the same terms as Cycles nodes, yet work in other ways. Such as roughness, while both control the how "rough" the surface is, they use differing value systems, so plugging the roughness map into the roughness input on shader will not yield the correct result.
The other aspect is that Cycles mainly deals with individual shaders, while PBR workflows deal with one "ubershader" that has all the controls and functions (such as Fresnel) already built in for a physical material. This is what makes it so easy to get a realistic material using simple texture maps using PBR, yet so complex in Cycles to create something as simple as Plastic realistically.
Although it sounds like PBR is the clear winner over Cycles, PBR also has some limitations due to being based upon one "ubershader". Effects such as translucency, transparency, SSS, and refraction are impossible to do with PBR materials in a realistic fashion. Instead, relying upon "fake" or baked options to achieve the same result. While in Cycles, these effects already have their own shaders that can be added to any node setup.
Sorry for the rant. But I hope that cleared some things up for you. I may even put together an article on this subject now that I'm thinking about it. Do you think that would be useful for other artists like yourself?