Author Topic: Sully vs Julius Randle  (Read 14368 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Sully vs Julius Randle
« Reply #60 on: July 25, 2014, 03:43:50 PM »

Offline sofutomygaha

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2586
  • Tommy Points: 343

In a second. I would do that deal in a second.

This talk about potential and double-doubles is overblown. If Randle gets 30 minutes a game, he will average a double double. So would Jordan Hill have. He rebounded well enough in college, and rebounding does translate (particularly early on in a career). If Boozer and Kelly get the lion's share of the minutes at the 4, he won't.

LA would not take your deal. They'd prefer the rookie with 2 more years of cost control and no health issues.

Jeff Green has been getting many many 30 minutes. Had like 2 double doubles.

Bass has also had many 30+ minute games.

I don't get your point

You make it sound like getting 30 minutes will almost definitely guarantee double doubles.

We have two big, athletic guys who've played 30+ minutes without a double double.

Jeff Green drifts to the 3 point line so you could make an exception for him. But Bass bangs inside and doesn't rebound well despite his physical attributes.


Ahh. Actually, I just meant that the two limiting factors tend to be (1) rebounding rate and (2) playing time. If he gets enough PT, an above-average but not killer rebounder can average a double double. Lamarcus Aldridge, David Lee, Al Horford, Al Jefferson- lots of rookies come into the league and rebound more effectively than they do. There's a good chance that Julius Randle will.

I probably should set the bar closer to 35 mpg than 30 mpg, but the point is the same. It's mostly just going to matter how much the Lakers play him. Only a few rookies get close to that many minutes.

Re: Sully vs Julius Randle
« Reply #61 on: July 27, 2014, 12:51:54 PM »

Offline TheTruthFot18

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2125
  • Tommy Points: 263
  • Truth Juice
And I thought Smart was gonna have trouble getting minutes at his position. Unless the lakers brought in Boozer as an expensive towel guy, Randle will be limited too.
The Nets will finish with the worst record and the Celtics will end up with the 4th pick.

- Me (sometime in January)

--------------------------------------------------------

Guess I was wrong (May 23rd)

Re: Sully vs Julius Randle
« Reply #62 on: July 27, 2014, 01:14:18 PM »

Offline the_Bird

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
  • Tommy Points: 176
I would take a 265 pound Sullinger over Randle, but I'm worried we will see a 290+ pound Sully.
Randle is the better athlete, but Sully has a higher IQ IMO, better hands, and a softer touch around the rim.

i agree, a player that's built around skill and fundamentals will always be more reliable and durable. Though Randle isnt short of skill himself.. I'll take sully though, the development of that 3 will be key.

No, no - not developing the 3 will be the key ;)  No 3s!  With his bulk, every time he shoots one from downtown he's bailing out his defender, when he should be bulldozing him inside.  Randle has fundamentals, too, btw.  Have you seen any highlights from the summer league?  The guy is dribbling the ball the full length of the court and making plays for his teammates with ease and speed.  Sorry, I'd rather have him.  And Smart ;D

A three point shot would make Sullinger an even deadlier player don't you think?

He's killing *us* as long as he's hitting them at only 27%.

Am I the only one that gets worried about Sully turning into a poor man's Antoine?  Never in shape and falling in love with a mediocre 3 pointer. 

Re: Sully vs Julius Randle
« Reply #63 on: July 27, 2014, 02:26:42 PM »

Offline knuckleballer

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6363
  • Tommy Points: 664
I'm not worried about it.  It was Brad Stephens who encouraged him to take those shots in a rebuilding year to find out what he is capable of.  If he doesn't improve, it won't be part of his game.  Antoine was just reckless.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 02:41:10 PM by knuckleballer »

Re: Sully vs Julius Randle
« Reply #64 on: July 27, 2014, 02:50:16 PM »

Offline relja

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 375
  • Tommy Points: 31
  • heart, hustle and muscle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IYHx6swpuI
This isn't very encouraging.

Brian Doo or someone has to talk some sense to him, he doesn't need to lose lbs, just needs to lose the fat tissue and gain some muscle mass, during the same time.

Right now if you compare Sullinger and Randle, of course Sully is better than an 19 y/o who hasn't played a single game of NBA Action. Sullinger might have some laziness in him, or character issues but Randle ain't perfect either. He is a diva, he declined a second workout because "had had already shown enough" and he badly wanted to be a Laker. What if we had drafted him? Would he decline to play because we aren't the Lakers?
Sullinger is a better player by far, especially IQ-wise. He doesn't get his rebounds solely by bullying others in the paint (although he could still have decent REB numbers by doing just that), he positiones him self well and anticipates the ball well. He has a knack for the game.

The answer to this debate will be much clearer after this season.
When you lose, the easy part is to see who gives up. Giving up is very simple. You basically take your stuff and walk away. To continue to work and to continue to compete is one of the most difficult things, especially when you really don't have anything - KG

Re: Sully vs Julius Randle
« Reply #65 on: July 27, 2014, 04:19:41 PM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36776
  • Tommy Points: 2961
Sully sport n ....a Mack Truck size tire around his belly... :o


He needs a bunch of fat boy ....stay in shape clauses in his contract ......gee wiz

Is he not motivated by anything but food..... :-X

Re: Sully vs Julius Randle
« Reply #66 on: July 27, 2014, 04:27:50 PM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
Eh, Sully doesn't look that bad to me in that video.  He's clearly not on game shape but he doesn't have the fat face look of someone truly overweight.

Mike