Why Josh Jackson Should Go #1 to Celtics

bobheckler wrote:

Rmbone wrote:

bobheckler wrote:http://stats.nba.com/teams/traditional/#!?sort=W_PCT&dir=-1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Playoffs


Boston Celtics team shooting, regular season = 45.4%

Boston Celtics team shooting, playoffs-to-date  = 46.5%


Boston Celtics team 3pt shooting, regular season = 35.9%

Boston Celtics 3pt shooting, playoffs-to-date = 37.4%


Boston Celtics fta, regular season = 21.4 per game

Boston Celtics ftas, playoffs-to-date = 23.2 per game.


So, the premise that fg% goes down in the playoffs is not necessarily true, nor is the idea that the refs swallow their whistles and don't call fouls like they do during the regular season.  If you look at GSW, San Antonio and Cleveland's numbers, they hold up as well.  Team offense should still generate good looks and good shots.  

Boston Celtics assists, regular season = 25.2
Boston Celtics assists, playoffs-to-date = 27.3

The extra pass, better ball movement has improved our fg% in the playoffs.

Do one-one-one players shoot worse in the playoffs?  Curry is shooting 61.5% in the playoffs, Durant 60%, LeBron 55.7%, IT 44.1%.  IT shot 46.3% during the regular season, so he's off a bit.

You need go-to guys.  You need a guy who, when the chips are down and you need, absolutely need, points they will get them for you.  Did Kobe have a lot of stinker games, where he shot 8-28 or such?  Yes, but if the game was close, if it was just a couple of possessions difference either way, you wanted the ball in his hands.  Everybody can't be a complementary player unless you have depth in skill sets in your starters.  IT and Horford are both good ball distributors.  I don't have the stats, but I'll bet our assists/possession goes up when Marcus Smart is on the floor with IT and Horford because Smart can play half court point pretty well.  If Marcus Smart could shoot he'd be the perfect player.

I think that is even more true in this more offensively-oriented NBA.  Forget a moment about the Porzingis/Bender/Maker/Freak fascination du jour, shooters are shooters.



bob


.

My premise was about 3 point fg% of star shooters. For their careers, Bird, Ray, Reggie, Steph, and Klay all shoot lower 3 pt % in the playoffs than regular season.

Rmbone,

But does their 3pt shooting decline greater than, equal to or less than other 3pt shooters?  If they are an elite shooter hitting 40% during the year and drop, say, to 38% in the playoffs how does that compare to a 35% shooter regular season?  Does the inferior, mediocre shooter drop off more?  It's not just about 3pt fg% dropping, it's who drops more (or contrariwise, if 3pt fg% went UP during the playoffs then the question would be do elite 3pt shooters' fg% increase more than mediocre 3pt fg shooters).  They aren't playing in a vacuum or on NBA 2k, they are playing against other players who are feeling the same pressure.  Who feels more pressure taking a 3pt shot, an average shooter or an assassin?

Then there are the players who love pressure.  Marcus Smart, for one.  Has to be the worst shooter in the league except for when the game is on the line and in the playoffs.  A 28.3% 3pt fg shooter regular season is 38.8% playoffs-to-date.  Same with Rozier.  31.8% regular season, 44% playoffs.  Horford, 35.5% regular season, 58.3% playoffs.  This is why I'm tracking players' playoff stats.  Who steps up?


bob


.  

The guys who are ball dominant carry a much bigger load than the role players. Doing that all season, and then all the way to the Finals, is pretty exhausting. And the pressure on the central star 3 point shooter is much higher than that of the role players, especially in the Finals.

The vast majority of the noted 3 point shooters in NBA Finals have been role players, not ball dominant 3 point shooting stars. Even Ray Allen in Miami was a role player at the end of his career.

3 point shooting is important for championships, but history shows us that guts, defense, superior athleticism, and gutsy scoring from two point range are more important.

Josh Jackson embodies all of those things, he loves taking the last shot, he can get his shot off at will, and he expends much more energy and emotion on the court than Fultz or Ball. He's the Finals MVP prototype.

dboss wrote:

Shamrock1000 wrote:I doubt the Celtics would take Jackson with the number one pick. Since Fultz seems to be the guy everyone wants, if the Celtics want to go that way (not saying they should...), they would be better off trading the number one to either the Lakers or Philly. For some reason I see the Lakers taking Lonzo, so we could conceivably give Philly our 1st pick for their 3rd and some other assets - that way we would still get Jackson and accumulate additional assets. This would be the Belichick move. Please note that I am not recommending this course of action, just saying that if you want Jackson, that would be the way to go. I have to do more research before saying Jackson would be a better pick than Fultz, who seems to have no weakness other than coming off as a little melo. Also, I think I'd rather draft a league mvp than a finals mvp - you gotta get to the finals first, and finals mvp is kind of quirky (please don't tell me Iggy was more valuable to that team than Steph). Finally, the analysis of 2-pt vs 3-pt shooters getting the finals mvp is not fair. the 3 pt "revolution" is only a few years old, so it is not surprising that 2-pt shooters dominated the finals mvp in the past.

Shamrock you touched on many key points that I was thinking about

I think that if you campaign for a player you should at least disclose  their weaknesses.  So here is my take on the Fultz/Jackson discussion.

The 3pt shot is here to stay and any suggestions that it is not all that important is not based in reality. This should be considered in the context of who the Boston Celtics are and how do they play offense.  Even the casual observer could not overlook how many 3 point shots the Celtics take each game.  This playoffs the Celtics are putting up 34.9 3 pt attempts out of 83.3 FGA.  That is 42% of all FG's taken.  How long have we talked about the need to improve our 3 pt shooting?

There are many reasons NOT TO draft Jackson over Fultz

For a SF Jackson's wingspan is less than impressive.  As a matter of fact Fultz has the same wingspan as Jackson 6'9.75"

Jackson has a strange twitch on his jump shot where he holds the ball low, raises it up, twitches and then release the ball.

Jackson has a slight frame and there are questions about his ability to add strength which will be needed if you project him to play PF in a small lineup

Jackson is poor shooting off the pick and roll or in isolation 28%

Jackson is poor shooting the ball off the dribble 20%

Jackson is redundant since the Celtics used the 3rd pick in the draft last year to draft SF Jaylen Brown.  The Celtics also have Jae Crowder at SF under a team friendly contract.  The Celtics are in need of a reliable scorer off the bench and if that scorer can play two positions it would be even better.  Fultz is the perfect combo guard.

Jackson is a solid defender and averaged 1.7 steals and 1.1 blocks last season while Fultz averaged 1.6 steals and 1.2 blocks per game.

Jackson does not have a great handle.

Jackson is a horrible free throw shooter.

Considering that Fultz has a complete skill set (must work on his FT %) and Jackson does not it clear to most knowledgeable basketball fans that Fultz is the clear choice for the # 1 pick.  If I team was looking to add a high end SF,  Jason Tatum would also be a consideration.

dboss

Dboss, Jackson has an outstanding handle for a 6'8 guy. And he's a much, much more impactful defender than Fultz. You can look at the simple stats, or look at the wingspan measurements, or look at the internet scouting reports, but the reality in this case is very different.

If anybody is projecting Josh Jackson to be a PF, then they're pretty ... silly.

The same people telling you that Jackson has a hitch (not twitch) are the same people telling you Lonzo's shot will be just fine. These internet scouts all think alike, and all parrot what draft express says first. They'll tell you Jackson is a terrible FT shooter with bad form, while praising to the sky's Lonzo Ball, who has much, much worse shooting form, and not-much-better FT shooting. Even Fultz shot less than 10% better from FT than Jackson. But these offense loving internet scouts will tell you (and themselves) that that 10 point % difference from FT is more important than the huge gulf between Jackson's elite defense and Fultz and Ball's mediocre-at-best defense.

Jackson started the season shooting cold, but then he absolutely caught fire and even outshot Fultz and Ball from 3 in conference play.

Remember last year, when all these same "experts" with their stupid "consensus" said that Jaylen Brown can't shoot? And how Buddy Hield and Kris Dunn would have been much better picks? Remember the boos in Boston Garden on draft night? Quite a bit different from the playoff roars for Jaylen in these playoffs.

These internet scouts place way too high an importance on offense, and even then they suck at evaluating shooting ability. Jaylen Brown shot 34% from 3 as a rookie, and Thon Maker - another guy they said couldn't shoot - shot 38% from 3 as a rookie. If a guy shows some shooting ability, and shoots with confidence, and he can make a big impact defensively, then all that is going to lead to good shooting in the NBA.

Josh Jackson shot 44% from 3 the entire second half of the season. Go ahead and follow the guys who insist he can't shoot based on a cold start to his freshman season. That 44% 3 point shooting for the entire 2nd half of the season was a fluke. That it doesn't count because he has a minor, easily correctable flaw in his shooting form, sometimes.

Jackson is a clear-cut superstar shooting guard, with the ability to also be a huge star at SF. Anybody pointing out that he's grossly underweight to play PF is just looking for an excuse to bash Jackson.

These internet scouts place way too much importance on early season shooting success, and ignore shooting %s the second half of the year if it doesn't confirm what they already think they know.

I'm not saying Fultz would be a terrible pick with #1, but Jackson is being picked apart by internet "experts" who simply favor a certain, flashy, ball dominant style of play.

Jackson is a very good prospect.
He could turn out to be the best player in the draft.
He has very good ball handling skills, is extremely athletic and has a smooth form on his jump shot.
I think Philly will be thrilled if Jackson is there at #3.

It's good for Boston to have options.
If they draft another guard, one of their top 4 existing guard would probably be traded.
If Boston drafts Jackson, they probably won't be looking to sign Gordon Hayward.
It will be an exciting two month for Celtics and Lakers fans.

I'm not weighing in on the Fultz-Jackson debate since I know little about either player, but I do want to make a comment about MVP's. When Iggy won the MVP two year's ago, in large part it was really because Cleveland had to pay so much attention to Steph, who drew frequent double teams. That opened up the game for Iggy. The same thing happened Monday night. Washington had to guard Isaiah and was putting so much attention on him, especially in the 4th Q, that Kelly had many open shots. Credit the point guards with allowing others to get open. Yes, Iggy and Kelly played like stars, but the would not have twinkled had not their point guards attracted so much attention.

Jackson would be a fine #1 pick for us.  Tatum could be slightly better.  Either would end up giving us a starting SF for the next decade.

We'll select Fultz, and then look to upgrade the SF spot in the future.

Fultz is the shooter we need to compliment IT.  He can play off the ball or on, allowing us to create all kinds of schemes and matchup dilemmas.

Fultz also gives us insurance against an IT injury or departure down the road, and helps fill a talented young backcourt if we decide Bradley has become too injury prone.  IT, Smart, Rozier, Bradley and Fultz.  Keep four.  Five if you really like small-ball.  Combo guard city, baby, for the modern NBA, nearly 'positionless' game.

tjmakz wrote:Jackson is a very good prospect.
He could turn out to be the best player in the draft.
He has very good ball handling skills, is extremely athletic and has a smooth form on his jump shot.
I think Philly will be thrilled if Jackson is there at #3.

It's good for Boston to have options.
If they draft another guard, one of their top 4 existing guard would probably be traded.
If Boston drafts Jackson, they probably won't be looking to sign Gordon Hayward.
It will be an exciting two month for Celtics and Lakers fans.

If Fultz agrees to a workout against Jackson, it's going to be supper time for JJ.

NYCelt wrote:Jackson would be a fine #1 pick for us.  Tatum could be slightly better.  Either would end up giving us a starting SF for the next decade.

We'll select Fultz, and then look to upgrade the SF spot in the future.

Fultz is the shooter we need to compliment IT.  He can play off the ball or on, allowing us to create all kinds of schemes and matchup dilemmas.

Fultz also gives us insurance against an IT injury or departure down the road, and helps fill a talented young backcourt if we decide Bradley has become too injury prone.  IT, Smart, Rozier, Bradley and Fultz.  Keep four.  Five if you really like small-ball.  Combo guard city, baby, for the modern NBA, nearly 'positionless' game.

NYCelt,

If Tatum or Jackson would be our starting SF of the next decade then what is #3 pick Jaylen Brown?


bob


.

worcester wrote:I'm not weighing in on the Fultz-Jackson debate since I know little about either player, but I do want to make a comment about MVP's. When Iggy won the MVP two year's ago, in large part it was really because Cleveland had to pay so much attention to Steph, who drew frequent double teams. That opened up the game for Iggy. The same thing happened Monday night. Washington had to guard Isaiah and was putting so much attention on him, especially in the 4th Q, that Kelly had many open shots. Credit the point guards with allowing others to get open. Yes, Iggy and Kelly played like stars, but the would not have twinkled had not their point guards attracted so much attention.

Good point Worcester. On the other hand, we already do have IT on the team to fill that role.

Another good reason to draft Jackson that hasn't been mentioned: Not only do we already have two of the top 18 most productive PGs in the NBA, and three of the top 32 most productive PGs in the NBA, Danny has a better eye for PG talent than he does for other positions for future drafts. What's crazy is that a fourth PG we cast aside for nothing, was the 22nd most productive PG in the NBA this year. http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/WINS/position/1

I don't claim to be an nba scout, and both Jackson and Fultz look impressive to me. What I like about Fultz is:

1) he seems to have really excellent body control. This is often over-looked when judging athleticism. As far as I can tell, when people say "athletic" they pretty much mean speed and verticle. Pierce was always described as not very athletic. I disagree with this description, since Pierce had amazing balance and body control. That allowed him to make difficult shots others could not. Also, I think this type of athleticism keeps players healthy - they land awkwardly less often.

2) He is crafty, and changes speeds effortlessly. This reminds me of Isaiah - he knows just when his defenders momentum is committed to a direction, and then he changes speeds/direction. I actually think the fact that he does it so effortlessly resulted in the knock on him that he "plays at half speed". This is a gift that goes particularly well when combined with bodycontrol.

3) He sees the floor and has concentration. This trait goes well with numbers one and two. Even when displaying his "body control", he never loses focus, which allows him to either score or pass. Similary, when juking defenders with his crafy speed-changing moves, he knows just where the hoop is and where his teammates are.

I was initially concerned that he seemed to laid back, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe he doesn't beat his chest and scream for the cameras, but the kid seems to have good focus, at least offensively. I agree with the scouts' concensus that the physical tools to be a good defender are there, and a year with Brad, Avery, Jae, and Marcus will likely help him buy in. I'm sure I have post-lottery delirium, but this kidd could be special...

bobheckler wrote:

NYCelt wrote:Jackson would be a fine #1 pick for us.  Tatum could be slightly better.  Either would end up giving us a starting SF for the next decade.

We'll select Fultz, and then look to upgrade the SF spot in the future.

Fultz is the shooter we need to compliment IT.  He can play off the ball or on, allowing us to create all kinds of schemes and matchup dilemmas.

Fultz also gives us insurance against an IT injury or departure down the road, and helps fill a talented young backcourt if we decide Bradley has become too injury prone.  IT, Smart, Rozier, Bradley and Fultz.  Keep four.  Five if you really like small-ball.  Combo guard city, baby, for the modern NBA, nearly 'positionless' game.

NYCelt,

If Tatum or Jackson would be our starting SF of the next decade then what is #3 pick Jaylen Brown?


bob


.

Bob,

Badly needed bench strength. Or, gone in a deal.

Regards

Pierce was just on ESPN and said the Celtics need to trade the top pick for another all-star. He said they are ready to win now and need another NBA star.

and there are stories that Danny will look at trades, like this one
http://nba.nbcsports.com/2017/05/17/danny-ainge-makes-it-clear-he-will-explore-trades-for-no-1-pick-but-may-keep-it/

What makes people here forget about Jaylen as our future at SF? I just don't get replacing a 6'7" 225 lb. athletic freak with a 6'8" 205 pound player. Jaylen Brown will be our star SF/SG for years to come. Watch for it.

kdp59 wrote:Pierce was just on ESPN and said the Celtics need to trade the top pick for another all-star. He said they are ready to win now and need another NBA star.

and there are stories that Danny will look at trades, like this one
http://nba.nbcsports.com/2017/05/17/danny-ainge-makes-it-clear-he-will-explore-trades-for-no-1-pick-but-may-keep-it/

Definitely a possibility, but they could also always trade next year's Nets pick.....

Shamrock1000 wrote:I don't claim to be an nba scout, and both Jackson and Fultz look impressive to me. What I like about Fultz is:

1) he seems to have really excellent body control. This is often over-looked when judging athleticism. As far as I can tell, when people say "athletic" they pretty much mean speed and verticle. Pierce was always described as not very athletic. I disagree with this description, since Pierce had amazing balance and body control. That allowed him to make difficult shots others could not. Also, I think this type of athleticism keeps players healthy - they land awkwardly less often.

2) He is crafty, and changes speeds effortlessly. This reminds me of Isaiah - he knows just when his defenders momentum is committed to a direction, and then he changes speeds/direction. I actually think the fact that he does it so effortlessly resulted in the knock on him that he "plays at half speed". This is a gift that goes particularly well when combined with bodycontrol.

3) He sees the floor and has concentration. This trait goes well with numbers one and two. Even when displaying his "body control", he never loses focus, which allows him to either score or pass. Similary, when juking defenders with his crafy speed-changing moves, he knows just where the hoop is and where his teammates are.

I was initially concerned that he seemed to laid back, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe he doesn't beat his chest and scream for the cameras, but the kid seems to have good focus, at least offensively. I agree with the scouts' concensus that the physical tools to be a good defender are there, and a year with Brad, Avery, Jae, and Marcus will likely help him buy in. I'm sure I have post-lottery delirium, but this kidd could be special...

Good post Shamrock, and that's a good attitude to have. We really can't go wrong with either Jackson or Fultz.

My only lingering concern is what happened with the 76ers when they drafted 3 centers. The trade value of Noel and Okafor both plummeted, because other teams knew the 76ers had too many darn centers. If we drafted Fultz, the trade value of IT and Bradley and Smart and Rozier plummets instantly.

worcester wrote:What makes people here forget about Jaylen as our future at SF? I just don't get replacing a 6'7" 225 lb. athletic freak with a 6'8" 205 pound player. Jaylen Brown will be our star SF/SG for years to come. Watch for it.

There's room for two at the star SF/SG position. Jackson and Jaylen are a match made in heaven.

Shamrock1000 wrote:

kdp59 wrote:OK now to throw something else to wall in this thread......


what would everyone think IF Danny TRADES the top pick?




I'll get this $hitstorm started

Danny trades #1 pick and A. Bradley  to Utah for R. Gobert, R. Hood and the #24 pick.

we take on an additional $10M in salary on (Gobert is signed for 4 More years now). leaving us plenty of room to resign Kelly or match any offer. Utah has moeny to resign Hayward AND get the top pick in this years draft for the point guard they need to team with Hayward and Bradley.

our roster next year is:

Gobert
Horford
Zeller
Zizic
Kelly
Yabusele
Crowder
Jaylen
Hood
Smart
Thomas
Rozier
T. Ferguson- #24 pick

players on the bubble:
D. Jackson
J. Mickey
Nader

Danny could also drop Zeller before his salary become guaranteed and use the money for another mid level vet player who may fit better, without moving into tax territory.

No way. We would be getting fleeced. If we trade this pick, it has to be for a superstar, not just a star/allstar. If we could get Anthony Davis, maybe, but that would require this year's number one pick, Brooklyn's next year, and probably more...

Gobert and Whiteside are best rebounders and shot blockers who "might" be available in a trade.

Davis and Cousins will go no where until NO sees if they can play together.

so if we need rebounding and shot blocking to get to the next level, as many think and have said here....that's the type of players I would want in any trade.

Gobert is under contract for I believe 4 FULL years and Hood is a very good shooter with size under his rookie deal one more year ( then a RFA, we can control).

to me its a fair deal.

[quote="kdp59"][quote="Shamrock1000"]

kdp59 wrote:

Gobert and Whiteside are best rebounders and shot blockers who "might" be  available in a trade.

Davis and Cousins will go no where until NO sees if they can play together.

so if we need rebounding and shot blocking to get to the next level, as many think and have said here....that's the type of players I would want in any trade.

Gobert is under contract for I believe 4 FULL years and Hood is a very good shooter with size under his rookie deal one more year ( then a RFA, we can control).

to me its a fair deal.

Just because they are the best available, doesn't mean they are worth the number one pick. Next year's Brooklyn pick? Maybe...

worcester wrote:What makes people here forget about Jaylen as our future at SF? I just don't get replacing a 6'7" 225 lb. athletic freak with a 6'8" 205 pound player. Jaylen Brown will be our star SF/SG for years to come. Watch for it.

W -

I didn't forget him, I just think that with Tatum or Jackson, he's bench strength. I think Tatum and Jackson both display a capable enough game coming out of D1 ball that they would have potential to be moved into the starter role relatively soon. They would give us shooting and scoring beyond that of Brown, or Crowder. Once they get acclimated to the NBA, Tatum or Jackson would probably will give us at least the same level of defense we're getting now. Especially Tatum. Either Brown or Crowder would help us build that championship caliber bench we need.

Regards

We don't need the #24 pick. Why would we trade Avery and the #1 pick for Gobert and Hood? Maybe Avery for Gobert straight up. Avery and the #1 pick are worth more than Gobert and Hood any day, and I would like to wrench Gobert away from Utah, but not on those terms.

Here's a photo of Fultz, clearly bulking up. https://www.instagram.com/p/BTuq3wqAhCX/

He might be more of a 6'4"-6'5" shooting guard in the future than a point guard who can stay in front of shorter water bugs.

NYCelt wrote:

worcester wrote:What makes people here forget about Jaylen as our future at SF? I just don't get replacing a 6'7" 225 lb. athletic freak with a 6'8" 205 pound player. Jaylen Brown will be our star SF/SG for years to come. Watch for it.

W -

I didn't forget him, I just think that with Tatum or Jackson, he's bench strength.  I think Tatum and Jackson both display a capable enough game coming out of D1 ball that they would have potential to be moved into the starter role relatively soon.  They would give us shooting and scoring beyond that of Brown, or Crowder.  Once they get acclimated to the NBA, Tatum or Jackson would probably will give us at least the same level of defense we're getting now.  Especially Tatum.  Either Brown or Crowder would help us build that championship caliber bench we need.

Regards

A #3 pick best used as "bench strength" behind a younger, less experienced player is French for crap shoot.


bob


.

Being bulked up like that probably makes Fultz a good fit next to either IT or Bradley. Bradley could play the Pat Beverly role next to Fultz playing the James Harden role, with Fultz guarding SGs and Bradley defending PGs.

Rmbone wrote:

Shamrock1000 wrote:I don't claim to be an nba scout, and both Jackson and Fultz look impressive to me. What I like about Fultz is:

1) he seems to have really excellent body control. This is often over-looked when judging athleticism. As far as I can tell, when people say "athletic" they pretty much mean speed and verticle. Pierce was always described as not very athletic. I disagree with this description, since Pierce had amazing balance and body control. That allowed him to make difficult shots others could not. Also, I think this type of athleticism keeps players healthy - they land awkwardly less often.

2) He is crafty, and changes speeds effortlessly. This reminds me of Isaiah - he knows just when his defenders momentum is committed to a direction, and then he changes speeds/direction. I actually think the fact that he does it so effortlessly resulted in the knock on him that he "plays at half speed". This is a gift that goes particularly well when combined with bodycontrol.

3) He sees the floor and has concentration. This trait goes well with numbers one and two. Even when displaying his "body control", he never loses focus, which allows him to either score or pass. Similary, when juking defenders with his crafy speed-changing moves, he knows just where the hoop is and where his teammates are.

I was initially concerned that he seemed to laid back, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe he doesn't beat his chest and scream for the cameras, but the kid seems to have good focus, at least offensively. I agree with the scouts' concensus that the physical tools to be a good defender are there, and a year with Brad, Avery, Jae, and Marcus will likely help him buy in. I'm sure I have post-lottery delirium, but this kidd could be special...

Good post Shamrock, and that's a good attitude to have. We really can't go wrong with either Jackson or Fultz.

My only lingering concern is what happened with the 76ers when they drafted 3 centers. The trade value of Noel and Okafor both plummeted, because other teams knew the 76ers had too many darn centers. If we drafted Fultz, the trade value of IT and Bradley and Smart and Rozier plummets instantly.

What I like about Jackson:

1) Kid just "feels" like a winner. Endless motor/hustle, seems to have a good attitude. Appears coachable, and will work hard to improve. Seems like a team player, doesn't need the ball to be effective. These qualities cannot be taught, and are under-rated. Just like you need the gift of athleticism to be a star, you also need the gift of "motor/attitude". Lack either one, and the ceiling is limited.

2) Appears to be an off-the-charts athlete: quick, explosive, coordinated. One scout described his moves as "slithery" - I like that, reminds me of Olajuwan. This is a type of body control that can't be taught. Like Fultz, can also change momentum on a dime to juke defenders.

3) Looks like he has a good BBIQ: combined with 1) and 2), he has a real shot of being an impact player.

Looks like we will end up with a good player one way or another....

Shamrock1000 wrote:

Rmbone wrote:

Shamrock1000 wrote:I don't claim to be an nba scout, and both Jackson and Fultz look impressive to me. What I like about Fultz is:

1) he seems to have really excellent body control. This is often over-looked when judging athleticism. As far as I can tell, when people say "athletic" they pretty much mean speed and verticle. Pierce was always described as not very athletic. I disagree with this description, since Pierce had amazing balance and body control. That allowed him to make difficult shots others could not. Also, I think this type of athleticism keeps players healthy - they land awkwardly less often.

2) He is crafty, and changes speeds effortlessly. This reminds me of Isaiah - he knows just when his defenders momentum is committed to a direction, and then he changes speeds/direction. I actually think the fact that he does it so effortlessly resulted in the knock on him that he "plays at half speed". This is a gift that goes particularly well when combined with bodycontrol.

3) He sees the floor and has concentration. This trait goes well with numbers one and two. Even when displaying his "body control", he never loses focus, which allows him to either score or pass. Similary, when juking defenders with his crafy speed-changing moves, he knows just where the hoop is and where his teammates are.

I was initially concerned that he seemed to laid back, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe he doesn't beat his chest and scream for the cameras, but the kid seems to have good focus, at least offensively. I agree with the scouts' concensus that the physical tools to be a good defender are there, and a year with Brad, Avery, Jae, and Marcus will likely help him buy in. I'm sure I have post-lottery delirium, but this kidd could be special...

Good post Shamrock, and that's a good attitude to have. We really can't go wrong with either Jackson or Fultz.

My only lingering concern is what happened with the 76ers when they drafted 3 centers. The trade value of Noel and Okafor both plummeted, because other teams knew the 76ers had too many darn centers. If we drafted Fultz, the trade value of IT and Bradley and Smart and Rozier plummets instantly.

What I like about Jackson:

1) Kid just "feels" like a winner. Endless motor/hustle, seems to have a good attitude. Appears coachable, and will work hard to improve. Seems like a team player, doesn't need the ball to be effective. These qualities cannot be taught, and are under-rated. Just like you need the gift of athleticism to be a star, you also need the gift of "motor/attitude". Lack either one, and the ceiling is limited.

2) Appears to be an off-the-charts athlete: quick, explosive, coordinated. One scout described his moves as "slithery" - I like that, reminds me of Olajuwan. This is a type of body control that can't be taught. Like Fultz, can also change momentum on a dime to juke defenders.

3) Looks like he has a good BBIQ: combined with 1) and 2), he has a real shot of being an impact player.

Looks like we will end up with a good player one way or another....

Yup. Fultz reminds me of Gilbert Arenas with better intangibles, and Jackson reminds me of a taller Scottie Pippen with a better 3 point shot, at least from the corner.

worcester wrote:We don't need the #24 pick. Why would we trade Avery and the #1 pick for Gobert and Hood? Maybe Avery for Gobert straight up. Avery and the #1 pick are worth more than Gobert and Hood any day, and I would like to wrench Gobert away from Utah, but not on those terms.

we'd never get Gobert for Bradley straight up...Utah signed  the 24YO big man to a four year $102M extension in oct of 2016. It kicks in next season.

but maybe Utah would take the #1 pick for him even up?

we can throw in Zeller...smile!!

just thoughts and daydreams.