What is Sully's ceiling?

[Snakehead]

Had to say anything but "Kevin Love (sans the incredible outlets) but plus actually playing defense" how he has been playing... which is great!

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Have you ever seen Charles Barkley play? What part of Sully's game even resembles Barkley? Worst comparison that I keep seeing.

Hey, now. The question was what Sully's ceiling will be, not who he resembles. Nothing wrong with being optimistic.

Thank you, Vox.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Have you ever seen Charles Barkley play? What part of Sully's game even resembles Barkley? Worst comparison that I keep seeing.

Same body type. Consistent double-double output. Lots of hustle on the boards.

But at least you're not condescending.

Body type? Barkley was 6'4 with wide shoulders and thick lower body. He was lean for the majority of his career, he was never Sully's size during his playing days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu3vkwP3GHQ

As you can see there style of play is in no way comparable.

Well, he was called "The Round Mound of Rebound" for a reason. But besides body type, I also mentioned as similarities their tendency for double-doubles and lots of hustle rebounds. Do you disagree with these too?

Anyway, as Vox_Populi said, the original question pertained to ceiling, not player resemblance, though I can see how resemblance might be implied a bit—in which case, I stand by my comparison to Barkley.

[nickagneta]

Have you ever seen Charles Barkley play? What part of Sully's game even resembles Barkley? Worst comparison that I keep seeing.

Same body type. Consistent double-double output. Lots of hustle on the boards.

But at least you're not condescending.

Body type? Barkley was 6'4 with wide shoulders and thick lower body. He was lean for the majority of his career, he was never Sully's size during his playing days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu3vkwP3GHQ

As you can see there style of play is in no way comparable.

Well, he was called "The Round Mound of Rebound" for a reason. But besides body type, I also mentioned as similarities their tendency for double-doubles and lots of hustle rebounds. Do you disagree with these too?

Anyway, as Vox_Populi said, the original question pertained to ceiling, not player resemblance, though I can see how resemblance might be implied a bit—in which case, I stand by my comparison to Barkley.

So are you suggesting that his ceiling is that of being an MVP and Hall of Famer?

[celticmania]

I think if he can get his body in shape like Kevin Love did, he will be an all-star no doubt...i think his ceiling is probably 19pts 9rbs and 5 time all-star and like i said, his ceiling is way higher if he can get in shape

[Ogaju]

One thing that came out of this thread is a reminder of how crazy good Sir Charles Barkley was. Can someone tell me why LeBron James gets better accolades than Sir Charles? Loos to me that he was just as strong, perhaps not as fast but for his girth he had pretty good wheels and hops.

[obnoxiousmime]

One thing that came out of this thread is a reminder of how crazy good Sir Charles Barkley was. Can someone tell me why LeBron James gets better accolades than Sir Charles? Loos to me that he was just as strong, perhaps not as fast but for his girth he had pretty good wheels and hops.

Because Barkley never won a title and his prime years coincided with Jordan's. The one season he won the MVP his team lost to the Bulls in the Finals.

Since LeBron is now the BPA (best player alive) and has multiple titles, naturally he would be compared to Jordan, not Barkley.

[Ogaju]

I understand your point, but LeBron was ordained before he won anything, no?

In fact, one could argue that the preordaining of LeBron is a bigger factor in his championships than his actual skill set. In other words the NBA made LeBron's championships happen. If the NBA had needed Barkley to win, he would have won.

[Snakehead]

C'mon dude the NBA didn't do anything, LeBron won.  You don't watch the games?  He has been absolutely dominant.

Barkley didn't win because his teams weren't good enough to beat Jordan.  Pretty much that simple.  Still an all time great.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Have you ever seen Charles Barkley play? What part of Sully's game even resembles Barkley? Worst comparison that I keep seeing.

Same body type. Consistent double-double output. Lots of hustle on the boards.

But at least you're not condescending.

Body type? Barkley was 6'4 with wide shoulders and thick lower body. He was lean for the majority of his career, he was never Sully's size during his playing days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu3vkwP3GHQ

As you can see there style of play is in no way comparable.

Well, he was called "The Round Mound of Rebound" for a reason. But besides body type, I also mentioned as similarities their tendency for double-doubles and lots of hustle rebounds. Do you disagree with these too?

Anyway, as Vox_Populi said, the original question pertained to ceiling, not player resemblance, though I can see how resemblance might be implied a bit—in which case, I stand by my comparison to Barkley.

So are you suggesting that his ceiling is that of being an MVP and Hall of Famer?

It's hard to predict who's going to reach MVP and Hall of Fame levels of play, but sure, why not Sully? He was a top college player, probably would've been a top-5, maybe even top-3, pick if not for the back issue, many fans (myself included) have already come to expect double-doubles from him, and he's developing 3-point range in only his second season.

None of those is a guarantee of anything, but I think it's legitimate to argue that, based on his career so far, he has a shot at reaching those levels.

[D.o.s.]

If Sullinger comes close to being in Chuck's zip code I'll be more than excited. As it stands I don't see much, if any, similarities between the two of them. Sullinger doesn't have the bull-in-a-china-shop quality that made Barkley so much fun to watch. Esp. on the fast break.

I don't think Sullinger's really going to stack up to the Mound, though I'm biased because Sir Charles is one of my favorite basketball players.

[obnoxiousmime]

I understand your point, but LeBron was ordained before he won anything, no?

In fact, one could argue that the preordaining of LeBron is a bigger factor in his championships than his actual skill set. In other words the NBA made LeBron's championships happen. If the NBA had needed Barkley to win, he would have won.

I assume by your statement you are one of those conspiracy types who are convinced sports leagues do anything they can to promote certain stars over others.

In Barkley's case, he and that Suns team were massively popular and it wouldn't have hurt the league at all if he had won the title that season. To use a purely orchestrated event as an analogy, in wrestling the "faces" win sometimes too, to send the audience home happy.

Additionally, the Lakers and Celtics dominated the 80s and nobody complained that the league would be better if only one team were dominant. In fact people probably love that decade of basketball more than the 90s.

If LeBron was being protected, why would he be allowed to lose two titles? Especially his second Finals appearance when the opposing team was the Mavericks, with the rebellious Cuban as an owner and the lack of any popular stars (Nowitzki is great, but no kids are buying his sneakers)?

[BballTim]

One thing that came out of this thread is a reminder of how crazy good Sir Charles Barkley was. Can someone tell me why LeBron James gets better accolades than Sir Charles? Loos to me that he was just as strong, perhaps not as fast but for his girth he had pretty good wheels and hops.

  He was a less skilled ball-handler and passer than James, and not the outside shooter LeBron is, or the defender. He was quite a player though, capable of 30/20 games.

[freshinthehouse]

Pretty much what BballTim said.  Barkley couldn't pass, shoot, dribble, or defend like Lebron.  Barkley was a downright awful defensive player.  Lebron is the best wing defender in the league right now. 

[chambers]

After watching his first 5 games I said here that he was projecting as rich mans Carlos Boozer...which is a good thing. I mean his numbers are better currently per 36 than David West's were as an All Star in 07' & 08'.
The benefit of playing with KG for just one year has cemented him and our franchise for the rest of his career.
He's killing NBA centers underneath and it's not his position. I think he's capable of a Kevin love career without as many rebounds but far superior defense.
We don't need Love, we've got Sully. I thought he'd be great but he got over the back issues after surgery quicker than I expected.
He'll be an All Star just dunno if he'll be a starting All Star.
Boozer in his prime on offense was a 21 & 12 rebound guy but Sully is already a far superior defender.
If Boozer and West are both 2x All Stars we have to assume Sully will be looking at around 4 or 5 appearances minimum-playing Rondo will get his points up above the 20 mark and moving to PF means he'll guard more PFs and less centers.
I'll admit I never thought we'd have someone grow so quickly this season into legit help for Rondo...I've been pleasantly proven wrong by Sully.
Just wish we were in the running for a top 8 pick this season. Still a long way to go but steals like Sully don't come around that often.