He missed two shots, a good three that simply rimmed out and the other miss was actually an offensive rebound tip-in if I recall correctly, no need to give him crap about THAT effort.
When you shoot under .30% is it ever a good shot. Most guys who are rusty know to shoot up close shots to get themselves going. Rim outs are still misses not like they give you a point or so. Him shooting threes is a bad shot for us, bad shot for him and something he ought to be doing in the offseason until he can hit a better percentage.
He was open, he took it, it's a good shot. When he made himself available in the low post, the ball didn't get to him, so what are you going to do? You don't like him taking 3s? That's fine. It was still a good shot to take whether you like him taking them or not.
He also took three shots, not something that a guy missing for a while should do, I love the tip in. But the reason we have won some games lately is that we have run the ball and did not have people hogging it and we passed it around. He wants to play star/hero ball not team ball.
Seriously, what are you talking about here? He took ONE open shot, he barely touched the ball the rest of the time he was on the floor. The other was an attempt at a tip in... star/hero ball doesn't come into the equation AT ALL last night.
I don't know why you're calling him out for being lazy in this particular game, when in fact he was running the floor, at times one of the 2-3 that ran back on defense in transition moments.
People seem clear split on whether he was faster or not. Seems like more think he was not.
Being faster or not has nothing to do with playing the game lazy or not. The fact is, whether he was faster or not, he was actually running the floor even when some of his team mates weren't, I don't see you calling them lazy.
I don't recall the MCW foul at the moment, but the other foul was a bit lame after a very good defensive play and a bit of two players fighting for a lose ball. The way this game was reffed, I wouldn't put too much stock on what was called on the floor as it is.
Slow guys have to foul to stop their man and they can't stay up with them. Do you realize he had 2 fouls in three minutes.
Yes, I do know he had 2 fouls in three minutes.. it's why I made mention of BOTH occasions. And as I mentioned I don't recall the cirumstances that led to the MCW foul, but the foul on the Ilyasova foul it had nothing to do with being slow or not being able to keep/stop their man. In fact, he made a very good defensive play and was called on the foul on the scramble for the lose ball.
We're not talking about the theory of why foul rates are high for players, we're talking about 2 very specific events during last night's game.
Yes, he didn't help and he was also put in a very bad situation unit wise, and that's on Stevens. That aside, first game on limited minutes after a fracture that was supposed to keep him out for the season, not sure the "he didn't help" carries any weight. That he looked mobile out there is good enough for me, now we have practice so he can do 5 on 5 drills and such.
I think whoever brought him back to the team made a bad call. Although, I actually think he could help in the two Cleveland games because, that will have some half court elements to it that I think he could do ok in.
You don't like him, we're quite aware of that, we get it.
I honestly do not think that Stevens wanted him back. Recall he said this:
Stevens has stressed the defensive DNA of this team and with Jared's return, said that the team won't sacrifice it's "defensive versatility."
That means he thinks little of his D, feels the DNA was bad prior and that he clearly feels that defensive versatility is not something he brings to the table. Anything he gives you on O, he gives to the other team on D, when he gives you nothing on O, like last night it is really bad.
Yes, you don't like him, we're quite aware of that. We get it. No need to keep repeating the same [dang] quote as if it were gospel. I really don't care what Stevens' thinks about his defense or not or really care about making assumptions of what that quote, out of context as it is, means.
As for being put in a bad situation, a pro's job is to play when their number is called. That might mean that you are put in some bad lineups, but it is still on you to produce. That might fly for a boy in high school but pros are supposed to be men and accountable. Stop driving the excuse bus.
I'm not giving excuses for Sully. I'm giving excuses for a certain unit to not producing, which included other players you know... including two teammates he had never even practiced with before and it also ignores how poorly the team was playing even prior to Sully getting on the floor.
Did he play? Yes. Did he help us win? NO. Was it the sole reason we lost ? no.
That's fine. Not going to over analyse a 3 minute play stint from a player that hasn't played in months with a team with a very different roster as it is.
But as for it carrying weight, you completely ignore the chemistry issues that this return would cause. Believe me, it carries weight. The team has been playing better ball, running and you bring back a me ball albatross, who thinks he is Kyle Korver but can't make three with a pencil and you think that has little effect?
I'm not ignoring chemistry issues... in fact, when I keep mentioning that Stevens put him in a unit with two new players is actually referencing chemistry issues, a position that Stevens shouldn't have put Sullinger in the first place, particularly when they haven't practiced together yet.
First, putting Sullinger for the first time in the 3rd quarter was a bad move, he should've put him in the first half to gauge he things are going in something the seemingly looks as a rotation, not throwing darts as Stevens is fond of doing in the 2nd half as an apparent panic experiment move.
So yes, there'll be some chemistry issues, but we'll see when he actually gets an extended run, even more so after some practice time. Until then, drawing conclusions from 3 minutes of play after coming back from injury is a bit foolish to do, not even worth the argument we're currently having other than keep repeating your dislike for Sullinger, which is fine I guess, but not a discussion I'm really interested in.
Plenty of players last night played poorly and were unproductive, focusing on a 3-minute stint from a player that is rusty seems quite overboard.
