Convince me Sullinger is a top 5 pick

[mavs7777]

How about the pistons picking Sullinger at 8th??

Sullinger-Monroe look decent offensively, but a rather poor defensive frontcourt imo.

I see Sullinger a late lotto pick, too many red flags, u needa get over all these weight, height, athleticism n poor defense issue and hope he'll be another Z-Bo/K.Love??

come on, lets be realistic. If u have a top 10 pick, if u go for a safe bet, u may take Tyler Zeller; a high risk/high return pick u may choose PJIII or Cody Zeller if both are available.

Dont see Sullinger being taken in top 10 unless the pistons (the only team may take him) reach big time for the player with many red flags. I am sure teams know what he can do , but some of his problems (short, unatheltic) are something coach cant change

I doubt he would be there at 8 but if he was I wouldn't take him if I was Detroit, he is a terrible fit next to Monroe, both really should be defending 4s at the next level, Monroe has been one of the worst defensive centers in the game and needs to be protected by a shot blocker that isn't Sullinger.

[rpa]

Would you draft a Luis Scola in the top 5? I'm not sure I would unless my team needs just screamed for it.

I think the OP misrepresented Sullinger's position in the draft. I don't think I've seen a legit mock yet with Sullinger in the top 5. DX has him at 6, NBADraft.net has him all the way down in the mid teens, and most mocks on this board have him in the 2nd half of the top 10.

Personally, I think that's good value for a Scola type player when you consider what generally comes out of that range. If you look at the history of the draft--say since '95 or so--the 6-10 range usually yields a star caliber player every year or two, a few starters, and a bunch of busts/bench players. Getting a Scola type player who'll still be really young (just turned 20) and will be on a rookie contract for 4 years is actually a decent pick. Granted, there's not much upside there, but there's also very little potential for a complete waste of a pick.

As a Kings fan, Sullinger is one of those guys that I actually wouldn't mind picking even though he doesn't fit what the team would like next to Cousins (a defender)--especially since that latter half of the top 10 looks like an absolute mine field of bust potential.

[gensu3k1]

I can't envision Zach Randolph ever being pwned so throughly by Withey (and don't get me wrong, Withey is a great shotblocker.)

And the Love comparisons are just silly. Sullinger has all of Love's limitations and none of his strengths. If he succeeds at the NBA level it won't be as a player like Love.

[shangrila]

I can't, because he's not. He's a lottery pick, but whoever drafts him top 5 will be disappointed.

[Johnlac1]

The problem is that a lot of fans, especially fans of bad clubs, look for a savior instead of realistically projecting how a particular player might help them by just being part of the solution rather than THE!! solution. If I''ve got a bad ball club, I'd probably take a chance on someone like Leonard who has a potential bigger upside over Sullinger. Even though at the same age, Sullinger was obviously a superior player in the same conference. Sullinger would help a bad club right away, but he'll never be more than a solid player. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. He could help a club, even a good club, next year. Leonard will not help a club for at least two or three years. And there's always the risk Leonard won't reach his potential. Sullinger's game now is easily more complete than Leonard's, and, at the same age, he's a lot more mature as well. So what bad ball clubs have to guess is: will they be better off picking a player, like Sullinger , who could help next year and be a part of a winning team after the acquisition of more good players down the road, or go for the potential, Leonard, that might pan out two orthree years from now. We shall see.

[ManualRam]

i can see a GM falling in love with his combination of power, skill, maturity, feel for the game and leadership skills. his contributions to a team could extend beyond his stats.
i have robinson ranked higher, but i could see it being a toss up to some GMs b/t the 2 because robinson is a bit of an unskilled spaz, and he's a junior already.

[Ell Curry]

When I watch Sullinger play, I worry he's no quick enough to dominate NBA PF's who are taller and almost as strong as he is (Withey defending him against Kansas and Jordan Morgan at UM at times), and that defensively he won't block shots or rotate quickly enough to be an above average team defender.

That said, Sullinger went from 3-12 from the 3pt line as a frosh to 16-40 as a soph and improved his FT% from 70 to 77 and doubled his blocks. If he can improve his athleticism by training hard before the draft, like Kevin Love did, and teams think he can shoot, I think he's a top 5 pick. His 2pt FG% dropping from 55 to 53 is a mild concern, but I'd imagine that's just a few less gimme post ups against smaller players. Anyone know why he went 15/46 on 2pt shots against MSU over 3 games. That's the best defense he faced repeatedly, so that's a bit of a concern.

It's hard to see him not being an effective pick and pop player, if his shooting improvement is for real. He's smart, has good hands and can hit a mid-range jumper and is strong enough to set good picks. The D is a bigger question mark. So, I guess I see him as a decent starting PF. A better rebounding Carl Landry who's better at getting to the line but shoots a bit worse. Best case, he's Millsap or Brand, but those guys are more aggressive, athletic scorers than Sullinger.

The Cavs would be a nice fit for him. Run the pick and pop with Irving and have Varejao to cover for him on D and Thompson's athleticism to compensate for his lack thereof.

[LionOfLannister]

Sullinger isn't Love, but he's going to be good. The problem he had at Ohio State was - he didn't have a Withey. He was it as far as legit college bigs on his team. When he was going against teams with a 7 foot center and a bruising PF, he was often going 1 against 2 - and it showed. He's going to be going against PF's in the NBA - not centers - and he won't be constantly doubled. He won't be Love, but he'll be fine in the NBA and he'll put up very good numbers - likely in the 16-18 and 9 range as a starter.

exactly how many college teams these days have legit 7 foot centers plus a real power forward?

[guille_4]

His game against Kansas State in the final four definitely hurt his draft stock. I still think he will be picked 8-12th. Guy is wreck.

[Golabki]

Could easily be the next Zach Randolph, think of the similarities

and Sullinger is only going to get better remember that

Sullinger has none of the quickness that Z-bo has, nor the repertoire though that can come later. Why is he only going to get better? Sean May didn't.

First, Sean May probably would have been a decent NBA player if he had stayed healthy.

Second, it took Sean May 3 years in the NCAA to dominate. Sully did it as a freshmen.... and in the end this is why Sullinger should go top 5. He was arguably the best player in the NCAA as a freshmen.

[shangrila]

i can see a GM falling in love with his combination of power, skill, maturity, feel for the game and leadership skills. his contributions to a team could extend beyond his stats.
i have robinson ranked higher, but i could see it being a toss up to some GMs b/t the 2 because robinson is a bit of an unskilled spaz, and he's a junior already.

I doubt it. Athleticism+production will always trump production just on its own.

I don't get the power comment. Ok, he can move college 4s around, but he's usually got a decent weight advantage on them which he won't have in the NBA. Not to mention guys are longer and are definitely going to be quicker then him, how's he supposed to leverage that power into anything?

[Eoghan]

Could easily be the next Zach Randolph, think of the similarities

and Sullinger is only going to get better remember that

Sullinger has none of the quickness that Z-bo has, nor the repertoire though that can come later. Why is he only going to get better? Sean May didn't.

First, Sean May probably would have been a decent NBA player if he had stayed healthy.

Second, it took Sean May 3 years in the NCAA to dominate. Sully did it as a freshmen.... and in the end this is why Sullinger should go top 5. He was arguably the best player in the NCAA as a freshmen.

I'll concede your second point but Sullinger isn't the hardiest person either. A heavy player with a history of back problems? Sign me up!

[fredericklove]

If Sully never developed a range, then he'll likely be terrible if he's only basing on his post game. But luckily he's got a range developed in his 2nd year in Buckeyes, thus its an effective weapon added to his repertoire. He'll struggle with his post game against lengthy/strong defenders in his 1st two years cos he relies too much on strength and has a slow jump, but his 3rd or 4 year would pan out and understand how to score efficiently so I think he'll likely be a poor man's Kevin Love, a 16-17 pts and 8-9 reb type.

[Red Larrivee]

Millsap might be a more fair comparison than Love, even though I don't think anyone (including me) thought Love would ever be a Top-10 NBA player like he is right now. Hell, I'd even say body-wise, he could be compared to Carlos Boozer.

I can see Sully being a 17-19ppg, 9-11reb player in his prime if everything works out. He's a very smart player, and it seems like he always gets good position down low to get buckets. He's also really good on reposts. Gotta love a rebounder who always gets great positioning and doesn't have to rely on athleticism or length to pull them in.

I think I trust Sully's game more than Robinson's right now. After AD, 2-5 is a tossup, but I feel Sullinger has to be in there when you consider his combination of being ready to contribute right away and having a high ceiling down the road.

[Eoghan]

I don't even like the Boozer comparison, I remember Boozer at Duke being markedly quicker and explosive than Sullinger. Boozer now though, yeah I can see that.

[Johnlac1]

Millsap might be a more fair comparison than Love, even though I don't think anyone (including me) thought Love would ever be a Top-10 NBA player like he is right now. Hell, I'd even say body-wise, he could be compared to Carlos Boozer.

I can see Sully being a 17-19ppg, 9-11reb player in his prime if everything works out. He's a very smart player, and it seems like he always gets good position down low to get buckets. He's also really good on reposts. Gotta love a rebounder who always gets great positioning and doesn't have to rely on athleticism or length to pull them in.

I think I trust Sully's game more than Robinson's right now. After AD, 2-5 is a tossup, but I feel Sullinger has to be in there when you consider his combination of being ready to contribute right away and having a high ceiling down the road.

Agreed. A lot of fans get hung up on comparing physical abilities and forget that some players know the game better than others. Sullinger is one of those players. He's not going to knock you out with his physical attributes, but he knows the game and he knows his limitations. Lack of knowledge of the game and not knowing their limitations is the problem of half the players in the NBA. You could put Sullinger, on a contending club, and he wouldn't screw up in key situations.

[ManualRam]

i can see a GM falling in love with his combination of power, skill, maturity, feel for the game and leadership skills. his contributions to a team could extend beyond his stats.
i have robinson ranked higher, but i could see it being a toss up to some GMs b/t the 2 because robinson is a bit of an unskilled spaz, and he's a junior already.

I doubt it. Athleticism+production will always trump production just on its own.

I don't get the power comment. Ok, he can move college 4s around, but he's usually got a decent weight advantage on them which he won't have in the NBA. Not to mention guys are longer and are definitely going to be quicker then him, how's he supposed to leverage that power into anything?

athleticism + production does not always trump skill, production and bball iq.
also, never underestimate the power of the posterior. it's great for gaining leverage and creating space.
he's not exactly a weakling on the interior either. even in the NBA i think that'll be an advantage of his as long as he's diligent in his strength and conditioning. he knows how to get leverage, does his work early and has the knowledge of body positioning in general.

[UGA Hayes]

I would be pretty shocked if he wasn't picked top 5. He is one of the best rebounders and scorers in college. Bigs in college who score as easily as him pretty much always are able to score on the pro level. All the stuff about size and athleticism are just ways to talk oneself out of a guy who is a sure thing offensively. To me the discussion really should be do you dislike him enough defensively to stay away for him, to me a more justifiable rationale. I mean if you took a list of the best scoring big men in the pros right now, very few of them were better offensive players then Sullinger in college. Plus I firmly believe he has been holding back on skills and will turn out ot be a better ballhandler and shooter than people realize. In other words I think he is going to be a pretty dynamite offensive player.

[mcfly1204]

I also wonder if/how much Sullinger's game would improve if he was paired with a legit playmaker. Craft is a nice point guard, but in the form of a career backup at the next level. Depending on where their pick is and who is left on the board, I do not completely hate the thought of Cleveland pairing Thompson with Sullinger. Samardo Samuels plays the 5 decently well, and I consider Sullinger to be a better version. Then again, I am over the thought of purposely acquiring players with a clear physical weakness.

[vincecarter4pres]

The comparison I like is Luis Scola

Boom.

Been saying he's likely to be somewhere between Scola and Boozer in the pros.

He'd be a solid pick at 4 or 5, but if he slips to somewhere between 6 and 10 like I think he will, Sullinger will probably be great value.