Author Topic: Was Big Al really that much better then Sully?  (Read 18072 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Was Big Al really that much better then Sully?
« Reply #105 on: June 20, 2014, 09:59:22 AM »

Offline Evantime34

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11942
  • Tommy Points: 764
  • Eagerly Awaiting the Next Fantasy Draft
All other arguments aside, I think one that is being overlooked is simply height. Jefferson was always looked at as legit 4/5 who is principally playing the 5 now at this point of his career. Sully is an undersized 4.  And despite the fact that he got some run at the 5 on this year's pathetic squad, no team is dealing for him with the intention of playing him at the 5.

And as we all know, guys who can play the 5 (particularly when they have a good post game) are always going to have more value than undersized 4s.
Agree about the height, and that Big Al could play the four and the 5. I do not agree that Sullinger is an undersized 4. He is an undersized 5 who most of the time guarded the other team's center but when he was guarding the 4 I he had plenty of size.

I personally think that Al's best skill is elite in the NBA, while Sullinger's best skill is simply very good. Sullinger is a very good rebounder, Al is probably the best pure post scorer in the game. Al also didn't have the weight issues and as bad an injury history as Sullinger, I think he was a much better prospect. That being said Kevin Garnett was also much better than Kevin Love.
DKC:  Rockets
CB Draft: Memphis Grizz
Players: Klay Thompson, Jabari Parker, Aaron Gordon
Next 3 picks: 4.14, 4.15, 4.19

Re: Was Big Al really that much better then Sully?
« Reply #106 on: June 20, 2014, 10:18:56 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Al is probably the best pure post scorer in the game.

You know, after exactly one minute of quick thinking, you might be right.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Was Big Al really that much better then Sully?
« Reply #107 on: June 20, 2014, 10:28:09 AM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33315
  • Tommy Points: 1747
  • What a Pub Should Be
Al is probably the best pure post scorer in the game.

You know, after exactly one minute of quick thinking, you might be right.

Extremely fluid on the offensive end with that low post game.  Very asthetically pleasing way to see basketball played, IMO. 

He was a fun one to watch back in his Celtics days.  Was he "that much better" than Sully?  At that point, probably not but I do think he was more polished offensively.  Defensively, he couldn't guard Yi Jianian's chair.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Was Big Al really that much better then Sully?
« Reply #108 on: June 20, 2014, 10:45:25 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Sullinger was encouraged to take 3s by Stevens...

This isn't the case of a player not understanding his limitations, its a front office and coaching staff understanding the objectives of the season and putting an emphasis on player development. They understand Sully's potential as a 3PT shooter and encouraged him to have confidence in and shoot from 3PT range in game situations.
A coach may encourage all he wants, but he doesn't take the shots for you. If you insist on taking a 27% percent shot, you're just dumb (and there isn't much "potential" there to speak of anyway).
« Last Edit: June 20, 2014, 10:55:10 AM by kozlodoev »
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Was Big Al really that much better then Sully?
« Reply #109 on: June 20, 2014, 10:52:53 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Sullinger was encouraged to take 3s by Stevens...

This isn't the case of a player not understanding his limitations, its a front office and coaching staff understanding the objectives of the season and putting an emphasis on player development. They understand Sully's potential as a 3PT shooter and encouraged him to have confidence in and shoot from 3PT range in game situations.
A coach may encourage all he wants, but he doesn't take the shots for you. If you insist on taking a 27% percent shot, you're just dumb (and there isn't much "potential" there to speak of anyway).

  So the way to play the game is to just ignore the coach's instructions if he doesn't think that his role suits his skills the best?

Re: Was Big Al really that much better then Sully?
« Reply #110 on: June 20, 2014, 11:21:07 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
So the way to play the game is to just ignore the coach's instructions if he doesn't think that his role suits his skills the best?
I have no idea what the "coach instructions" were precisely, but I wouldn't like my players to be mindless drones.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Was Big Al really that much better then Sully?
« Reply #111 on: June 20, 2014, 11:26:05 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
So the way to play the game is to just ignore the coach's instructions if he doesn't think that his role suits his skills the best?
I have no idea what the "coach instructions" were precisely, but I wouldn't like my players to be mindless drones.

  I doubt anyone would. By the same token if you tell a player you want him to take a certain shot in a certain situation you probably wouldn't be thrilled if he ignored that instruction. Brad watches the games, Brad knows whether Sully's hitting his shots or not. If Brad wanted Sully to keep taking the threes in spite of those current results then I'd expect to see him taking those shots.

Re: Was Big Al really that much better then Sully?
« Reply #112 on: June 20, 2014, 11:30:21 AM »

Offline fantankerous

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 915
  • Tommy Points: 122
So the way to play the game is to just ignore the coach's instructions if he doesn't think that his role suits his skills the best?
I have no idea what the "coach instructions" were precisely, but I wouldn't like my players to be mindless drones.

At least we now know Sully doesn't have three point range.  It's bad for his career and bad for his value, but at least we know.

Re: Was Big Al really that much better then Sully?
« Reply #113 on: June 20, 2014, 11:34:53 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
So the way to play the game is to just ignore the coach's instructions if he doesn't think that his role suits his skills the best?
I have no idea what the "coach instructions" were precisely, but I wouldn't like my players to be mindless drones.

At least we now know Sully doesn't have three point range.  It's bad for his career and bad for his value, but at least we know.
We do, but I'm not sure he does. His father was going all giddy in one of his interviews during the season about how he "has that shot" and how great it is that he's got the opportunity to show that.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Was Big Al really that much better then Sully?
« Reply #114 on: June 20, 2014, 11:49:45 AM »

Offline PaulAllen

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1103
  • Tommy Points: 55
Big al > Sully however KG >> Love ... so Flip can stop pulling rabbits out of his hat

Re: Was Big Al really that much better then Sully?
« Reply #115 on: June 20, 2014, 11:52:07 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Big al > Sully however KG >> Love ... so Flip can stop pulling rabbits out of his hat

  By the same token the draft picks that went out in the KG trade were pretty weak.