Zeller>Leonard is debatable. For all the shit Leonard gets from fans, he had a better rookie year than Zeller at a younger age. Add in physical tools and upside and I'm not sure it's even really a debate.
Sorry, but I am over the whole "potential is better than production" approach. Zellar is nothing special, but he can play basketball. Lynard is just a guy who looks like he should be a basketball player. Zellar had a better college career and a better rookie season.
Except he didn't have a better season. He had a little bit more overall production, because he played more on a worse team. He's not better than Leonard at anything and Leonard has more potential.
Zeller had top-notch college coaching, so he's years ahead of Leonard, who has more potential. While we wait 3 years for Leonard to become serviceable (his current basketball IQ turned out to be much worse than we expected on draft day), Zeller could be our substitute center (which is all that Leonard will ever be, after we wait 2-3 years). Here's how the writer explains it later in the same article.
Lynard might be more athletic. He might even beat Zellar 1-on-1 on the playground. I don't see how anybody who has watched them actually play can think Lynrd is more effective in a 5-on-5 game situation. Call it BBall IQ, or instinct, or whatever you choose - the kid shows no sign of having it.
To channel my inner MM, are we really discussing which white center we want? Oh man, I need to get my brain cleaned.
My theory on his unimproving basketball IQ is that his contact lenses irritate his eyes and distract his attention. Same goes for Aldridge.
