Losing Turner and Sullinger is addition by subtraction

[kozlodoev]

Just maybe keep the passive aggression to oneself

I don't know who this whole thing is about, but I find it hilarious that you included this line in a huge passive aggressive post

That would be me. I still stand by my opinion that Horford is not as much of an upgrade as people think, and losing Turner is underrated. Doesn't strike me as a particularly passive-aggressive stance, but to each their own.

I'd just like to point out that losing Turner has nothing to do with whether or not we're fine at SF -- it is about who initiates the offense when Thomas hits the bench. The plan is seemingly to use Rosier and perhaps Smart when he's back -- two players who haven't proven yet that they can handle this duty on a regular basis in the NBA. This approach will make the team brass look either very smart or very stupid when all is said and done.

[MBunge]

Just maybe keep the passive aggression to oneself

I don't know who this whole thing is about, but I find it hilarious that you included this line in a huge passive aggressive post

That would be me. I still stand by my opinion that Horford is not as much of an upgrade as people think, and losing Turner is underrated.

Losing Turner could be a big deal but if Evan Turner is the difference between winning and losing, your team is kidding itself if it want to be a legitimate contender.

Horford is a huge upgrade over what we had before, however.  Sully grabbed more rebounds but Horford is substantially better in literally everything else.

Mike

[Evantime34]

Just maybe keep the passive aggression to oneself

I don't know who this whole thing is about, but I find it hilarious that you included this line in a huge passive aggressive post

That would be me. I still stand by my opinion that Horford is not as much of an upgrade as people think, and losing Turner is underrated. Doesn't strike me as a particularly passive-aggressive stance, but to each their own.

I'd just like to point out that losing Turner has nothing to do with whether or not we're fine at SF -- it is about who initiates the offense when Thomas hits the bench. The plan is seemingly to use Rosier and perhaps Smart when he's back -- two players who haven't proven yet that they can handle this duty on a regular basis in the NBA. This approach will make the team brass look either very smart or very stupid when all is said and done.

What did you think of those opinions last night?

To me Horford looked like a big upgrade over Sullinger both on offense and defense.

On the other hand the second unit seemed to really miss Turner. It is no coincidence that the Nets came back when the C's went with 5 reserves. Up until that point Stevens seemed to mitigate the issue of not having Turner as the 2nd units offensive fulcrum by keeping one starter in with the reserves at all time.

If we don't see more aggression from Rozier tonight (as far as creating offense by forcing the defense to rotate) I think our bench will get outscored and we will lose.

I find myself watching Horford and Rozier very closely and probably will be this entire season.

[Moranis]

I don't think "addition by subtraction" is the right phrase. That suggests we'd get better by doing nothing but removing those guys from the roster, and that's not true. However, I do think we can replace their contributions, and have otherwise upgraded the team.

To counter your point, I agree with what ShaqAttack wrote above. I feel that Turner and Sullinger are the kind of players that put a team on a treadmill.

Maybe this is about Danny getting lucky or rewarded for taking chances. Perhaps the main reason Turner didn't return is because he was offered too much money by Portland. Looking at the box score from their game one, it looks like they got ripped off.

Maybe you are correct my use of the phrase was misguided. The addition by subtraction, to me, is that more dynamic players have replaced Sully and Turner minutes. You are definitely correct about Sully. We added Horford which makes addition through subtraction with Sully impossible to gauge.

So Turner is apparently easier to debate as addition by subtraction than Sullinger?

I am curious if and how Danny knew Rozier, Smart and Bradley would improve ball handling to the point that we could get along without Evan. Perhaps there is a fine line between luck and skill in regards to general manager.

I think letting Sullinger go in theory was addition by subtraction. We are turning into a fast team. Sully was slowing us down? We got faster simply by getting rid of the extra weight?

If we didn't sign Horford, Zizac might have been signed? I concede what ifs are a whole other ballgame. Many believe one of Danny's blind spots has been the center position. I think Sullinger as center was symbolic of that.

Sully has talent, no doubt. It looks like he could have become a better version of the projected Yabusele as skilled, not slow for bulk. Maybe Yabusele is the wrong example. Sully has skills Bass and Humphries are missing, but the latter guys were quick. Sullinger seems to be throwing away his future as an NBA player.

Turner was +10 had 5 rebounds, 5 assists, 1 steal, 1 block, 1 foul, and 0 turnovers.  Now yeah, he shot a horrendous 1 of 7, but his team was 10 points ahead with him on the floor because he fills up the stat line.  He got Crabbe a lot of open looks with his ball handling and drive and dish skills.  That is exactly what he did for Boston and he won't always be horrendous shooting the ball. 

There are stats out there that Boston was basically the worst offense in the league last year when Thomas or Turner wasn't on the floor.  I don't think you can just automatically assume that Brown, Rozier, and Smart are going to replace what Turner provided. 

[BudweiserCeltic]

I don't think "addition by subtraction" is the right phrase. That suggests we'd get better by doing nothing but removing those guys from the roster, and that's not true. However, I do think we can replace their contributions, and have otherwise upgraded the team.

To counter your point, I agree with what ShaqAttack wrote above. I feel that Turner and Sullinger are the kind of players that put a team on a treadmill.

Maybe this is about Danny getting lucky or rewarded for taking chances. Perhaps the main reason Turner didn't return is because he was offered too much money by Portland. Looking at the box score from their game one, it looks like they got ripped off.

Maybe you are correct my use of the phrase was misguided. The addition by subtraction, to me, is that more dynamic players have replaced Sully and Turner minutes. You are definitely correct about Sully. We added Horford which makes addition through subtraction with Sully impossible to gauge.

So Turner is apparently easier to debate as addition by subtraction than Sullinger?

I am curious if and how Danny knew Rozier, Smart and Bradley would improve ball handling to the point that we could get along without Evan. Perhaps there is a fine line between luck and skill in regards to general manager.

I think letting Sullinger go in theory was addition by subtraction. We are turning into a fast team. Sully was slowing us down? We got faster simply by getting rid of the extra weight?

If we didn't sign Horford, Zizac might have been signed? I concede what ifs are a whole other ballgame. Many believe one of Danny's blind spots has been the center position. I think Sullinger as center was symbolic of that.

Sully has talent, no doubt. It looks like he could have become a better version of the projected Yabusele as skilled, not slow for bulk. Maybe Yabusele is the wrong example. Sully has skills Bass and Humphries are missing, but the latter guys were quick. Sullinger seems to be throwing away his future as an NBA player.

Turner was +10 had 5 rebounds, 5 assists, 1 steal, 1 block, 1 foul, and 0 turnovers.  Now yeah, he shot a horrendous 1 of 7, but his team was 10 points ahead with him on the floor because he fills up the stat line.  He got Crabbe a lot of open looks with his ball handling and drive and dish skills.  That is exactly what he did for Boston and he won't always be horrendous shooting the ball. 

There are stats out there that Boston was basically the worst offense in the league last year when Thomas or Turner wasn't on the floor.  I don't think you can just automatically assume that Brown, Rozier, and Smart are going to replace what Turner provided. 

That's very misleading simply because we really didn't have anyone else able to step up and run the offense. So of course we'll be worse when they're both off the floor (and we're playing rookies and 2nd years).

[Moranis]

Just maybe keep the passive aggression to oneself

I don't know who this whole thing is about, but I find it hilarious that you included this line in a huge passive aggressive post

That would be me. I still stand by my opinion that Horford is not as much of an upgrade as people think, and losing Turner is underrated. Doesn't strike me as a particularly passive-aggressive stance, but to each their own.

I'd just like to point out that losing Turner has nothing to do with whether or not we're fine at SF -- it is about who initiates the offense when Thomas hits the bench. The plan is seemingly to use Rosier and perhaps Smart when he's back -- two players who haven't proven yet that they can handle this duty on a regular basis in the NBA. This approach will make the team brass look either very smart or very stupid when all is said and done.

I have been on this band wagon for awhile.  It is why I think Boston only wins 50 games and is at best a 2nd round playoff team.  Now maybe Rozier or Smart take a leap up and handle the pressure, and maybe Boston is consistent enough offensively and good enough defensively that its clear lack of rebounders is minimized (I mean last year Golden State wasn't a very good rebounding team, but it didn't really matter much), but I think a lot of people are going to be let down by what otherwise will be the best season in a long time.

[Moranis]

I don't think "addition by subtraction" is the right phrase. That suggests we'd get better by doing nothing but removing those guys from the roster, and that's not true. However, I do think we can replace their contributions, and have otherwise upgraded the team.

To counter your point, I agree with what ShaqAttack wrote above. I feel that Turner and Sullinger are the kind of players that put a team on a treadmill.

Maybe this is about Danny getting lucky or rewarded for taking chances. Perhaps the main reason Turner didn't return is because he was offered too much money by Portland. Looking at the box score from their game one, it looks like they got ripped off.

Maybe you are correct my use of the phrase was misguided. The addition by subtraction, to me, is that more dynamic players have replaced Sully and Turner minutes. You are definitely correct about Sully. We added Horford which makes addition through subtraction with Sully impossible to gauge.

So Turner is apparently easier to debate as addition by subtraction than Sullinger?

I am curious if and how Danny knew Rozier, Smart and Bradley would improve ball handling to the point that we could get along without Evan. Perhaps there is a fine line between luck and skill in regards to general manager.

I think letting Sullinger go in theory was addition by subtraction. We are turning into a fast team. Sully was slowing us down? We got faster simply by getting rid of the extra weight?

If we didn't sign Horford, Zizac might have been signed? I concede what ifs are a whole other ballgame. Many believe one of Danny's blind spots has been the center position. I think Sullinger as center was symbolic of that.

Sully has talent, no doubt. It looks like he could have become a better version of the projected Yabusele as skilled, not slow for bulk. Maybe Yabusele is the wrong example. Sully has skills Bass and Humphries are missing, but the latter guys were quick. Sullinger seems to be throwing away his future as an NBA player.

Turner was +10 had 5 rebounds, 5 assists, 1 steal, 1 block, 1 foul, and 0 turnovers.  Now yeah, he shot a horrendous 1 of 7, but his team was 10 points ahead with him on the floor because he fills up the stat line.  He got Crabbe a lot of open looks with his ball handling and drive and dish skills.  That is exactly what he did for Boston and he won't always be horrendous shooting the ball. 

There are stats out there that Boston was basically the worst offense in the league last year when Thomas or Turner wasn't on the floor.  I don't think you can just automatically assume that Brown, Rozier, and Smart are going to replace what Turner provided. 

That's very misleading simply because we really didn't have anyone else able to step up and run the offense. So of course we'll be worse when they're both off the floor (and we're playing rookies and 2nd years).

I think you misinterpret.  Those terrible offensive lineups included Bradley, Smart, Crowder, Olynyk, and Sullinger (just as one 5 man unit for example).  It wasn't like it was just a glut of bench players.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I don't think "addition by subtraction" is the right phrase. That suggests we'd get better by doing nothing but removing those guys from the roster, and that's not true. However, I do think we can replace their contributions, and have otherwise upgraded the team.

To counter your point, I agree with what ShaqAttack wrote above. I feel that Turner and Sullinger are the kind of players that put a team on a treadmill.

Maybe this is about Danny getting lucky or rewarded for taking chances. Perhaps the main reason Turner didn't return is because he was offered too much money by Portland. Looking at the box score from their game one, it looks like they got ripped off.

Maybe you are correct my use of the phrase was misguided. The addition by subtraction, to me, is that more dynamic players have replaced Sully and Turner minutes. You are definitely correct about Sully. We added Horford which makes addition through subtraction with Sully impossible to gauge.

So Turner is apparently easier to debate as addition by subtraction than Sullinger?

I am curious if and how Danny knew Rozier, Smart and Bradley would improve ball handling to the point that we could get along without Evan. Perhaps there is a fine line between luck and skill in regards to general manager.

I think letting Sullinger go in theory was addition by subtraction. We are turning into a fast team. Sully was slowing us down? We got faster simply by getting rid of the extra weight?

If we didn't sign Horford, Zizac might have been signed? I concede what ifs are a whole other ballgame. Many believe one of Danny's blind spots has been the center position. I think Sullinger as center was symbolic of that.

Sully has talent, no doubt. It looks like he could have become a better version of the projected Yabusele as skilled, not slow for bulk. Maybe Yabusele is the wrong example. Sully has skills Bass and Humphries are missing, but the latter guys were quick. Sullinger seems to be throwing away his future as an NBA player.

Turner was +10 had 5 rebounds, 5 assists, 1 steal, 1 block, 1 foul, and 0 turnovers.  Now yeah, he shot a horrendous 1 of 7, but his team was 10 points ahead with him on the floor because he fills up the stat line.  He got Crabbe a lot of open looks with his ball handling and drive and dish skills.  That is exactly what he did for Boston and he won't always be horrendous shooting the ball. 

There are stats out there that Boston was basically the worst offense in the league last year when Thomas or Turner wasn't on the floor.  I don't think you can just automatically assume that Brown, Rozier, and Smart are going to replace what Turner provided. 

That's very misleading simply because we really didn't have anyone else able to step up and run the offense. So of course we'll be worse when they're both off the floor (and we're playing rookies and 2nd years).

I think you misinterpret.  Those terrible offensive lineups included Bradley, Smart, Crowder, Olynyk, and Sullinger (just as one 5 man unit for example).  It wasn't like it was just a glut of bench players.

Bradley who can't run an offense and 2nd year (not ready) Smart running the offense... your point?

[Moranis]

I don't think "addition by subtraction" is the right phrase. That suggests we'd get better by doing nothing but removing those guys from the roster, and that's not true. However, I do think we can replace their contributions, and have otherwise upgraded the team.

To counter your point, I agree with what ShaqAttack wrote above. I feel that Turner and Sullinger are the kind of players that put a team on a treadmill.

Maybe this is about Danny getting lucky or rewarded for taking chances. Perhaps the main reason Turner didn't return is because he was offered too much money by Portland. Looking at the box score from their game one, it looks like they got ripped off.

Maybe you are correct my use of the phrase was misguided. The addition by subtraction, to me, is that more dynamic players have replaced Sully and Turner minutes. You are definitely correct about Sully. We added Horford which makes addition through subtraction with Sully impossible to gauge.

So Turner is apparently easier to debate as addition by subtraction than Sullinger?

I am curious if and how Danny knew Rozier, Smart and Bradley would improve ball handling to the point that we could get along without Evan. Perhaps there is a fine line between luck and skill in regards to general manager.

I think letting Sullinger go in theory was addition by subtraction. We are turning into a fast team. Sully was slowing us down? We got faster simply by getting rid of the extra weight?

If we didn't sign Horford, Zizac might have been signed? I concede what ifs are a whole other ballgame. Many believe one of Danny's blind spots has been the center position. I think Sullinger as center was symbolic of that.

Sully has talent, no doubt. It looks like he could have become a better version of the projected Yabusele as skilled, not slow for bulk. Maybe Yabusele is the wrong example. Sully has skills Bass and Humphries are missing, but the latter guys were quick. Sullinger seems to be throwing away his future as an NBA player.

Turner was +10 had 5 rebounds, 5 assists, 1 steal, 1 block, 1 foul, and 0 turnovers.  Now yeah, he shot a horrendous 1 of 7, but his team was 10 points ahead with him on the floor because he fills up the stat line.  He got Crabbe a lot of open looks with his ball handling and drive and dish skills.  That is exactly what he did for Boston and he won't always be horrendous shooting the ball. 

There are stats out there that Boston was basically the worst offense in the league last year when Thomas or Turner wasn't on the floor.  I don't think you can just automatically assume that Brown, Rozier, and Smart are going to replace what Turner provided. 

That's very misleading simply because we really didn't have anyone else able to step up and run the offense. So of course we'll be worse when they're both off the floor (and we're playing rookies and 2nd years).

I think you misinterpret.  Those terrible offensive lineups included Bradley, Smart, Crowder, Olynyk, and Sullinger (just as one 5 man unit for example).  It wasn't like it was just a glut of bench players.

Bradley who can't run an offense and 2nd year (not ready) Smart running the offense... your point?

my point was that is essentially your starting lineup, it isn't rookies and 2nd years.  Boston will feel the effect of not having a guy like Turner to run the 2nd unit.  You can't just disregard the statistics in that regard.  Turner was not replaced.  That will cost Boston some games. 

[CelticGuardian]

Man, Turner had to go so we can see if Ainge is actually drafting quality guys, we were never going to find out if Smart can do anything on offense besides brick shots if Turner doesn't go. And Sullinger wasn't progressing away from guy that can rebound.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I don't think "addition by subtraction" is the right phrase. That suggests we'd get better by doing nothing but removing those guys from the roster, and that's not true. However, I do think we can replace their contributions, and have otherwise upgraded the team.

To counter your point, I agree with what ShaqAttack wrote above. I feel that Turner and Sullinger are the kind of players that put a team on a treadmill.

Maybe this is about Danny getting lucky or rewarded for taking chances. Perhaps the main reason Turner didn't return is because he was offered too much money by Portland. Looking at the box score from their game one, it looks like they got ripped off.

Maybe you are correct my use of the phrase was misguided. The addition by subtraction, to me, is that more dynamic players have replaced Sully and Turner minutes. You are definitely correct about Sully. We added Horford which makes addition through subtraction with Sully impossible to gauge.

So Turner is apparently easier to debate as addition by subtraction than Sullinger?

I am curious if and how Danny knew Rozier, Smart and Bradley would improve ball handling to the point that we could get along without Evan. Perhaps there is a fine line between luck and skill in regards to general manager.

I think letting Sullinger go in theory was addition by subtraction. We are turning into a fast team. Sully was slowing us down? We got faster simply by getting rid of the extra weight?

If we didn't sign Horford, Zizac might have been signed? I concede what ifs are a whole other ballgame. Many believe one of Danny's blind spots has been the center position. I think Sullinger as center was symbolic of that.

Sully has talent, no doubt. It looks like he could have become a better version of the projected Yabusele as skilled, not slow for bulk. Maybe Yabusele is the wrong example. Sully has skills Bass and Humphries are missing, but the latter guys were quick. Sullinger seems to be throwing away his future as an NBA player.

Turner was +10 had 5 rebounds, 5 assists, 1 steal, 1 block, 1 foul, and 0 turnovers.  Now yeah, he shot a horrendous 1 of 7, but his team was 10 points ahead with him on the floor because he fills up the stat line.  He got Crabbe a lot of open looks with his ball handling and drive and dish skills.  That is exactly what he did for Boston and he won't always be horrendous shooting the ball. 

There are stats out there that Boston was basically the worst offense in the league last year when Thomas or Turner wasn't on the floor.  I don't think you can just automatically assume that Brown, Rozier, and Smart are going to replace what Turner provided. 

That's very misleading simply because we really didn't have anyone else able to step up and run the offense. So of course we'll be worse when they're both off the floor (and we're playing rookies and 2nd years).

I think you misinterpret.  Those terrible offensive lineups included Bradley, Smart, Crowder, Olynyk, and Sullinger (just as one 5 man unit for example).  It wasn't like it was just a glut of bench players.

Bradley who can't run an offense and 2nd year (not ready) Smart running the offense... your point?

my point was that is essentially your starting lineup, it isn't rookies and 2nd years.  Boston will feel the effect of not having a guy like Turner to run the 2nd unit.  You can't just disregard the statistics in that regard.  Turner was not replaced.  That will cost Boston some games. 

You're taking things out of context... I specifically noted "run the offense". I think you're diminishing how much value that little tidbit had in our effectiveness or lack of it in having something that resembled an offense.

This year Rozier, while still a 2nd year, seems fairly ready to run it and Smart this preseason looked quite better in that role as well.

So if Turner is missed while be dependent if these 2 succeed or not in running the offense. Nothing more and nothing less.

I don't think any of the other aspects of his game are going to be missed all that much, if at all.

[Surferdad]

The best kind of loss is a narrow win with terrible play in the 4th quarter almost leading to a loss.  In other words, I'm glad they got the W but hopefully learned a few things in the process.  To me, the biggest thing last night is that the Nets outworked the C's in the 4th quarter.  Play that way again tonight against a much more talented Bulls team and they will get blown out.

I take nothing else from that game about overall talent, who is gone, who is new, etc.  I think both you and the guy calling you out are thinking too hard.   

[The Oracle]

I don't think "addition by subtraction" is the right phrase. That suggests we'd get better by doing nothing but removing those guys from the roster, and that's not true. However, I do think we can replace their contributions, and have otherwise upgraded the team.

To counter your point, I agree with what ShaqAttack wrote above. I feel that Turner and Sullinger are the kind of players that put a team on a treadmill.

Maybe this is about Danny getting lucky or rewarded for taking chances. Perhaps the main reason Turner didn't return is because he was offered too much money by Portland. Looking at the box score from their game one, it looks like they got ripped off.

Maybe you are correct my use of the phrase was misguided. The addition by subtraction, to me, is that more dynamic players have replaced Sully and Turner minutes. You are definitely correct about Sully. We added Horford which makes addition through subtraction with Sully impossible to gauge.

So Turner is apparently easier to debate as addition by subtraction than Sullinger?

I am curious if and how Danny knew Rozier, Smart and Bradley would improve ball handling to the point that we could get along without Evan. Perhaps there is a fine line between luck and skill in regards to general manager.

I think letting Sullinger go in theory was addition by subtraction. We are turning into a fast team. Sully was slowing us down? We got faster simply by getting rid of the extra weight?

If we didn't sign Horford, Zizac might have been signed? I concede what ifs are a whole other ballgame. Many believe one of Danny's blind spots has been the center position. I think Sullinger as center was symbolic of that.

Sully has talent, no doubt. It looks like he could have become a better version of the projected Yabusele as skilled, not slow for bulk. Maybe Yabusele is the wrong example. Sully has skills Bass and Humphries are missing, but the latter guys were quick. Sullinger seems to be throwing away his future as an NBA player.

Turner was +10 had 5 rebounds, 5 assists, 1 steal, 1 block, 1 foul, and 0 turnovers.  Now yeah, he shot a horrendous 1 of 7, but his team was 10 points ahead with him on the floor because he fills up the stat line.  He got Crabbe a lot of open looks with his ball handling and drive and dish skills.  That is exactly what he did for Boston and he won't always be horrendous shooting the ball. 

There are stats out there that Boston was basically the worst offense in the league last year when Thomas or Turner wasn't on the floor.  I don't think you can just automatically assume that Brown, Rozier, and Smart are going to replace what Turner provided. 

That's very misleading simply because we really didn't have anyone else able to step up and run the offense. So of course we'll be worse when they're both off the floor (and we're playing rookies and 2nd years).

I think you misinterpret.  Those terrible offensive lineups included Bradley, Smart, Crowder, Olynyk, and Sullinger (just as one 5 man unit for example).  It wasn't like it was just a glut of bench players.

Bradley who can't run an offense and 2nd year (not ready) Smart running the offense... your point?

my point was that is essentially your starting lineup, it isn't rookies and 2nd years.  Boston will feel the effect of not having a guy like Turner to run the 2nd unit.  You can't just disregard the statistics in that regard.  Turner was not replaced.  That will cost Boston some games. 

You're taking things out of context... I specifically noted "run the offense". I think you're diminishing how much value that little tidbit had in our effectiveness or lack of it in having something that resembled an offense.

This year Rozier, while still a 2nd year, seems fairly ready to run it and Smart this preseason looked quite better in that role as well.

So if Turner is missed while be dependent if these 2 succeed or not in running the offense. Nothing more and nothing less.

I don't think any of the other aspects of his game are going to be missed all that much, if at all.

That 5 man unit of Smart/Bradley/Crowder/Olynyk/Sully played 6 minutes together last year and outscored their opponents 22-7. 

Turner is no loss at all offensively, he is a ball stopper and kills you even more every second the ball is not in his hands because he can't shoot which collapses the defense.  The C's had an offensive rating of 106.7 when Turner was not on the floor last year, the single best rating without anyone on the entire team. 

As far as Sully goes the game has just passed him by, it is to spread out and he doesn't have the speed and mobility to be highly effective anymore. 

[More Banners]

They were both replaced with 3PT shooters in Rozier/Green and Horford, which should help, and I'll take Horford over Sully on defense too. Especially help d. Longer and quicker. And taller.

[CelticPride2016]

That would be me. I still stand by my opinion that Horford is not as much of an upgrade as people think, and losing Turner is underrated. Doesn't strike me as a particularly passive-aggressive stance, but to each their own.

I'd just like to point out that losing Turner has nothing to do with whether or not we're fine at SF -- it is about who initiates the offense when Thomas hits the bench. The plan is seemingly to use Rosier and perhaps Smart when he's back -- two players who haven't proven yet that they can handle this duty on a regular basis in the NBA. This approach will make the team brass look either very smart or very stupid when all is said and done.

This comment is disingenuous in that the writer knows very well my issue was with his rude comment regarding my basketball knowledge.

Someone who thinks Horford isn't much of an upgrade over Sullinger is questioning someone else's basketball knowledge.

Terry's name is spelled as Rozier, not Rosier.