I 'll take ball movement over laziness and fat every day. Sully was productive on the offensive end, pathetic on the other and didn't bother to run the floor.
We were 18-31 with Sully this year. We are 12-10 without him. Now there are other factors like losing Green and Rondo and adding IT. But there is a big difference of being a .55% win team without and a .37% with him. Is it all on Sully, nope but some of it was folks.
In all honesty, we need more talent on this team. Some of that talent needs to be athletic. I miss Sully about as much as I miss hitting my thumb with a hammer.
Sully does not help us play small ball because he is out of shape and does not run. He literally was too lazy to run baseline to baseline and would launch threes as a result. He has does not help us play big ball either as he is a short 6-9 PF who does not match up well with athletic ability. So he only is useful in certain circumstances and he needs a rim protector to cover his butt on D. The kid can rebound and has nice hands but clover is right he is a bottom feeder.
And keeps ignoring how the Celtics throughout the season have been steadily improving, in particular after that incredibly difficult start to the season, which I believe as among the top 3 most difficult schedules in the NBA.
It also ignores how the Celtics were already in an upward trend WITH Sullinger before he got injured, and right after that we got the influx of talent.
So this talk about how we've been better without Sullinger is just a bunch of nonsense.
I've been disappointed with Sullinger's defense this particular year, he was very good defensively for us previously, so hope he comes back to form on THAT regard going forward.
But the notion that the reason for our success has been because we don't have Sullinger on the floor is crap. We'd be even better right now, and there's little doubt on that.