The Josh Jackson Thread

[bobheckler]

MY NOTE:  Since we appear to be very unlikely to draft Lonzo Ball the next likely pick by the Celtics, assuming Danny does the unexpected (like he did last year with taking Jaylen Brown 3rd when he was projected to go more like 7th) is Josh Jackson.  

My suggestion would be to not just dig in our heels and insist it has to be Fultz and anything else is unthinkable or unreasonable, that's out of our control, but rather let's discuss what role Jackson could play if Danny does take him, and what the implications of such a pick would mean on our roster in November.  In other words, assume the selection of Josh Jackson is a fait accompli and take it from there.
 
What would we have in that young man and what movements in our roster would that pick portend?


http://nba.nbcsports.com/2017/05/29/2017-nba-draft-prospect-profiles-is-josh-jackson-a-better-prospect-than-lonzo-ball/



2017 NBA Draft Prospect Profiles: Is Josh Jackson a better prospect than Lonzo Ball?




By Rob DausterMay 29, 2017, 12:30 PM EDT



Josh Jackson, at this point, seems to be the consensus best prospect not named Markelle Fultz or Lonzo Ball.

He’s 6-foot-8. He’s super-athletic. He’s competitive as hell. He’s skilled enough to play the point in a pinch and tough enough that he played the four at Kansas. On paper, he’s Andrew Wiggins physically with all the intangibles that we wish Wiggins had.

Then there’s the other side of it.

Jackson’s jump shot, which went in at a 37.8 percent clip from beyond the arc last season, has enough of a hitch in it that there is legitimate concern about just how good of a shooter he’ll end up being without a complete overhaul of his stroke. There’s also the mental side of the game: Jackson’s an instinctual playmaker that has a bad habit of being a space cadet defensively.

I’m not here to tell you those red flags don’t exist. They do. He has room to grow there.

But I am here to tell you that Josh Jackson is closer to being the best prospect in this draft than the third-best, and by the time I’m done here, you’ll be agreeing with me.

Height: 6’8″
Weight: 207
Wingspan: 6’10”
2016-17 Stats: 16.3 points, 7.4 boards, 3.0 assists, 1.7 steals, 1.1 blocks, 37.8% 3PT


https://www.facebook.com/DausterNBC/videos/1365972096771405/


STRENGTHS: The reason that Jackson is so coveted as a prospect are the things that he does that you cannot teach.

It starts with his competitiveness. Jackson is a fiery, he’s intense and it manifests itself in the way that he plays, almost to a fault; Jackson picked up four fouls in 11 of 35 games as a freshman and picked up a handful of technical fouls after interactions with officials. There’s also a toughness to him that outweighs his 207 pound frame. He’s not afraid to get into tangles for loose balls, he’s not going to get backed down easily and he’s more than willing to put his body on the line to take a charge. Simply put: I’d rather try to keep the reins on a player that may care just a little too much than have to find a way to fire up an apathetic talent.

Then there are the physical tools. Athletically, he’s a bouncy, quick-twitch player that can move laterally with terrific body control and the ability to changes speeds on the move. He’s quick enough to stay in front of point guards and explosive enough to block shots, catch lobs and throw down tip-dunks, and his 6-foot-8 size allows him to be a versatile, multi-positional defender. I hesitate on saying he has a elite physical tools due to his wingspan and frame, but we’ll get to that in a minute.

Lastly, there are his instincts. He’s a read-and-react player, a guy that can make plays defensively by jumping passing lanes, getting weak-side blocks and taking charges. He has a knack for getting easy buckets cutting to the rim and is aggressive on the glass on both ends of the floor.

Those are things that cannot be taught. You either have it in you or you don’t, and Jackson has it.

He also has some skills. We’ll get into the issues with his jump shot in a minute, but Jackson did make 37.8 percent of his threes as a freshman, including a 25-for-52 stretch to close the season. He utilizes ball-fakes and has a good enough first step to attack close outs, and while he isn’t the best or most creative finisher at the rim, he is capable of using both hands and has shown that he can make a floater.


Josh Jackson (Photo by Jamie Squire/Getty Images)


What’s more promising, however, is that Jackson has the potential to be a secondary ball-handler and creator. He has above-average vision and is an unselfish player and willing passer, averaging 3.0 assists as a freshman. He can operate in pick-and-rolls and is capable of bringing the ball up against pressure.

He’s still raw offensively — he makes some bad decisions, commits some turnovers — and, at times, looks like he hasn’t been coached all that much defensively, but the skills he does have combined with the things he does that cannot be taught are a fantastic foundation for an NBA organization to work with.

In a sport that is becoming increasingly positionless, Jackson provides starpower potential with versatility on both ends of the floor.


WEAKNESSES: The biggest issue with Jackson as a prospect is his jump shot. Yes, he shot 37.8 percent from beyond the arc, but it’s hard to tell whether or not that’s just the result of Jackson getting hot in a small sample of catch-and-shoot jumpers.

According to Synergy, Jackson shot just 57 percent from the free throw line, 35.9 percent on all jump shots, 32.3 percent on jumpers off the dribble and just 20.8 percent on two-point jumpers. The main concern is that Jackson has a hitch in his release that creates a lot of moving parts in his stroke, resulting in different release points. You can see it in the video below, there is a slingshot action in his release:




The question marks surrounding Jackson’s jumper sink his stock because, despite his height, he doesn’t project as a guy that can play the small-ball four role in the NBA the way that he did at Kansas. Jackson’s 6-foot-10 wingspan is relatively short — for comparison’s sake, Draymond Green has a 7-foot-2 wingspan and Kawhi Leonard has a 7-foot-3 wingspan — and his slender frame makes it hard to project just how much more muscle mass his body can hold.

Put another way, Jackson can guard twos and threes — and potentially ones — at the next level, but he’s not guarding fours. He’s going to be playing a position where he either needs to be an knockdown shooter or capable of creating in isolation in the half court, and Jackson scored just 0.609 points per possession in isolation as a freshman, the 23rd percentile, despite being guarded predominantly by college four-men on a team with three three-point snipers around him.

It begs the question: Is he ever going to be great at anything on the offensive end of the floor?

And that’s before you factor in that he turned 20 years old in February; he’s older than one-and-done freshmen drafted in 2016.

The other issue you’ll hear mentioned with Jackson is that he has bad habits defensively and he gets beaten on the dribble more easily than you would expect from someone with his athleticism. The bad habits — specifically, the tendency to lose focus on who he is guarding — seems to me to be a result of Jackson trying a little too hard to be a playmaker off the ball, and getting beaten off the dribble has a lot to do with his overactive, choppy feet.

Neither are all that concerning to me, particularly when you factor in his intangibles on that end of the floor. Those issues can be coached away, and there’s not better place for that to happen than in the NBA.


NBA COMPARISON: The easy — and lazy — comparison to make is Andrew Wiggins, who is another 6-foot-8, freakishly-athletic small forward to come out of Kansas, and it’s not the worst comparison I’ve ever seen. The two have similar physical tools and question marks about their jump shots. The problem with that comparison, however, is that the things that make Jackson so intriguing are precisely the skills that Wiggins struggles with.

Jackson is a tough, versatile defender and a fiery competitor that is well-rounded offensively: unselfish with promising court vision and a knack for making instinctual, read-and-react plays. His ceiling is as a player that can average more than 20 points, act as a secondary ball-handler and play maker while potentially being a shutdown defender for twos and threes. Andre Igoudala, before he landed with Golden State and turned into a role player in the twilight of his career, had a seven-year stretch where he averaged 12 points, five boards, five assists and 1.5 steals, scoring more than 17 points per game in four of those seasons.


OUTLOOK: The way I see it, Josh Jackson is the the second-best prospect in this draft. I’d draft him over Lonzo Ball, and I think the gap between Markelle Fultz and Josh Jackson is smaller than the gap between Josh Jackson and Ball, who would be third on my draft board.

Jackson has some issues that need fixing — his jump shot, his tendency to be a space cadet defensively — and there are some valid concerns about his age and the fact that his slender frame may not be able to hold all that much more weight, but those issues are coachable. What isn’t coachable, however, is his competitiveness, his intensity, his unselfishness, his instincts and his ability to read the game and be a playmaker, both offensively and defensively.

He’s a gifted athlete that is going to fight — quite possibly in the literal sense — for the team that he’s on. If he puts in the time to develop his jumper, his body and his focus on the defensive side of the ball, I don’t think it’s out of the question that he could average 25 points, five boards and five assists as a shutdown wing defender.



bob



.

[bobheckler]

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Josh-Jackson-7239/stats/







.


.



.



.



http://www.nbadraft.net/situational-analysis-josh-jackson



Situational Analysis: Josh Jackson

By Nick_Prevenas



Sun, 05/28/2017 - 10:09pm




"Situational Analysis" is a series of articles that seeks to examine the circumstances that most often influence an NBA prospect's success. Each player will be scored on a scale from 1-10 in four different categories: NBA-specific skill(s), fatal flaw(s), collegiate/overseas/pre-NBA environment, and ideal NBA ecosystem.

Josh Jackson is a 20-year-old wing from Southfield, Michigan, who averaged 16.3 points, 7.4 rebounds and 3 assists during his freshman season for the Kansas Jayhawks. He has spent the season at or near the top of every mock draft, and is widely expected to be the first non-point guard selected. NBADraft.net currently has him going No. 3 overall.


NBA-Specific Skills




Some prospects require a certain level of nuance and creativity in terms of scouting. Every NBA team employs countless individuals whose sole purpose is to predict what these players could become — essentially, to see into the future.

"If Prospect X does Y and Z to improve his game, then Prospect X could potentially contribute this and this to an NBA franchise."

Scouting Josh Jackson, on the other hand, requires next to no nuance or creativity.

An NBA front office could send a person who has never watched basketball to a random Jayhawks game and ask that person to simply point to the player who stands out.

After 20 minutes, that basketball novice would have pointed to No. 11.

Sometimes, it's just that simple. Jackson stands out on a basketball court the way Rihanna would stand out if she took part in The Voice — just an overwhelming level of star power and charisma when compared to the competition.

Jackson possesses that rare, un-teachable combination of athleticism and effort. We've all seen players with every athletic gift in the world content to coast on natural ability — Stromile Swift, Joe Alexander, and Tyrus Thomas come to mind. Conversely, we've seen a number of players who don't necessarily possess top-shelf NBA-level athleticism carve out lengthy careers based on effort, tenacity, coachability, and basketball IQ — remember Eduardo Najera? I loved Eduardo Najera.

Jackson is perhaps the best pure athlete in this draft class, and one can make the argument that he plays harder than any comparable prospect, too.

Throw in his frame (6-8, 210) and his positional versatility (can conceivably defend four positions, switch across any screen, and play in any offensive philosophy) and it's impossible to imagine a scenario in which Jackson isn't a high-level starter on a team with championship aspirations.

On a scale from 1 (James Harden during Game 6 of the San Antonio series) to 10 (LeBron James in June), Jackson's athleticism/effort combination rates at an 8.5.


Fatal Flaws

It seems we're constantly having this conversation about these extraordinary wing athletes. Can he shoot it?

It's what separates All-NBA wings from the serviceable-yet-limited starters who become liabilities in a playoff series. The ability to consistently knock down jumpers from 24 feet will determine Jackson's future.

He did make nearly 38 percent of his attempts from the shorter college line, but hidden beneath that number were some extended cold spells, offset by occasional hot streaks. For a 7-game stretch during Big 12 play, Jackson hit 15 of 28 from deep. If NBA teams wanted to cherry pick that three-week stretch to show that Jackson could develop into a No. 1 offensive option, they certainly could. Of course, teams could also look at how Jackson made only 9 of 38 3-pointers in Kansas's first 18 games of the season.

The most troubling number is Jackson's free-throw percentage: 56.6. A slasher such as Jackson can get to the stripe seemingly at will, but if he can't confidently knock down his foul shots, it will make him a liability at the end of games. Not only will he be susceptible to hack-a strategies, but free-throw struggles could also temper Jackson's valuable tenacity when attacking the rim.

Kawhi Leonard willed himself into an elite-level shooter. Jimmy Butler became an above-average one. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist and Justise Winslow are still working on it. See what I'm getting at? Jackson's ability to hit shots will determine where he falls on this spectrum. His need to hook up with a top-flight shooting coach rates at an 8.


Pre-NBA Setting




How do we put this? Jackson's time in Lawrence was a bit, um, up and down.

When he was on the court, Jackson played like a star. Even on a team with the eventual Wooden Award winner in Frank Mason and another dynamic guard in Devonte' Graham, it was Jackson who stole the show with a variety of "wow!" plays on both ends of the court.

That aggression, however, often boiled over — both on and off the court.

In the first three games of his college career, he was whistled for 13 fouls. He fouled out of three games and battled foul trouble in countless others. Quick whistles limited his effectiveness in Kansas's NCAA Tournament loss to Oregon.

An article in the Kansas City Star dated Jan. 6 discussed Jackson's penchant for picking up technical fouls — frustration manifesting itself in ill-advised ways. That's also a euphemistic way of describing an incident outside a bar where Jackson repeatedly kicked a car belonging to a member of Kansas's women's basketball team. One could also describe that as a crime.

Jackson also hit a parked car and fled the scene without telling anybody about it for weeks.

Each individual incident is not enough to consider dropping Jackson's stock. Taken as a whole, however, and it paints a picture of a young man who has trouble with impulse control and can let his anger get the best of him.

The interpretation is in the eye of the beholder: Is Jackson a good kid with a temper, who just needs to grow up a little bit? Or is Jackson going to be the kind of player who allows a couple bad calls to get in his head, much like DeMarcus Cousins? Why would he get involved in these off-court incidents when he knows millions of dollars await him?

The team drafting Jackson has a lot of homework to do.

It's difficult to rate Jackson's time in Lawrence on a scale from 1 to 10. On the court, it's a 9. Off the court, a 3. Let's split the difference and call it a 6.


Ideal NBA Ecosystem

Jackson needs two things to reach his full potential: 1) a very good shooting coach, and 2) a team/coach/infrastructure that doesn't put up with foolishness.

Make no mistake: Jackson is an incredible prospect. It's entirely possible that we look back on this draft and kick ourselves for not having Jackson listed as the No. 1 player. Given the number of dominant wings currently in the NBA (you know a position is stacked when Gordon Hayward and Paul George can't make an All-NBA team), a team needs one of its own to compete at an elite level.

Even if Jackson somehow regresses as a shooter, he'll find a role as a Tony Allen-level defensive stopper who runs the floor in transition, rebounds his butt off, back-cuts his way into 4-5 easy layups, and knocks down the occasional jumper. He's too gifted not to have a 12-year career.

Jackson's ceiling, however, is multiple All-NBA teams. Most mock drafts have him going to Philadelphia, where he'd slot at the 3 alongside Ben Simmons and Joel Embiid. He'd bring a dimension the 76ers currently lack on the perimeter, but he wouldn’t solve their spacing woes.

Others have speculated that the Boston Celtics could trade out of the No. 1 spot to take Jackson at 3, where he'd team up with Jaylen Brown for one of the most athletic young forward tandems in the league. Jackson would thrive under Brad Stevens and could develop at his own pace on a 50-win team.

There is also a scenario in which Jackson drops to Phoenix at 4, should the 76ers opt for a point guard such as De'Aaron Fox. Jackson and Devin Booker is a fascinating wing combination — each complements the other perfectly. I'm not certain Earl Watson is the ideal coach for him, but a team should never let a coach's limitations dictate its drafting philosophy. Coaches come and go, while prospects like Jackson are far more difficult to find.

Ultimately, Jackson's ability to thrive on the NBA rests primarily on his shoulders. He has the talent. Can the right franchise maximize it? I'd bet on yes.

On a scale from 1 to 10, I've got Jackson's likelihood to reach his ceiling at an 8.



bob



.

[RosalieTCeltics]

Okay, so where does that leave Jaylen?????

Bob, what happened to the Celtics first round pick? Did they trade it away for ?????

I am a bit perplexed about why we want a 6'8" guy. why not a big or a shooter???

[bobheckler]

Okay, so where does that leave Jaylen?????

Bob, what happened to the Celtics first round pick? Did they trade it away for  ?????

I am a bit perplexed about why we want a 6'8" guy. why not a big or a shooter???

Rosalie,

The question of "where does that leave Jaylen?" is one of the questions that would have to be answered if Danny and Brad picked Jackson.  And not just Brown, but Crowder too.  Is Brown gone or Crowder?

I was thinking, when creating this thread, of Danny using the #1 pick to take Jackson instead of Fultz.  I know, I know, everybody is all aboard the Markelle Fultz train but just about everybody was on the Buddy Hield train last year and Danny fooled us all.  The point of this thread is to discuss what if Danny does it to us again?

Josh Jackson being picked #1 requires much less of a leap of imagination than Jaylen Brown @ #3 was.

The possibility of a deal has been suggested on another thread (Sacto #3 + whomever for #1, with Fultz going to Sacto and we get Jackson) isn't crazy talk.  Sacto could use another SF, they have Tyreke Evans and that's about it (Rudy Gay's contract is up and I doubt they'll renew it).  They have McLemore and Hield for shooters in the back court and Darren Collison and Ty Lawson for PGs.  If we take Jackson a deal of some kind might be attractive to them since the next two players would be Ball and Fultz and LA and Philly would take them.  Then there's Jason Tatum.  Is he as good as Jackson?  I don't know.

But suppose Jackson comes in for a workout and he wows Danny and Brad like the way Jaylen Brown wowed them enough to take him ahead of Hield and Murray and Chriss or like the way Terry Rozier was taken 16th when he wasn't projected anywhere near that pre-draft because he came in for a workout and wowed Danny and Brad?  Suppose Fultz comes in too cocky, thinking he's in, and Jackson comes in like a starving junkyard dog?  What would be the implications of the Celtics taking Jackson with #1 or Fultz with #1 and trading someone in the top 3-4 or so for Jackson?


bob


.

[RosalieTCeltics]

you still did not tell me where our #1 pick is??? Was it traded???

[dboss]

If Boston did not draft Jaylen last year, Josh Jackson would be the obvious choice.

But we need a player that does not need a shooting coach.  I watched every Kansas game that I could last year.  I thought Jackson was a terrific player but I could see he needs to work on his handle and his shooting.  Just not seeing that he can be a solid shooter from behind the NBA 3 point line.

Choosing between him and Markell is easy. Fultz has a complete offensive package plus he can pass and rebound the basketball.  It is hard for me to make a legitimate argument for Jackson.  Last year I wanted to see Hield get drafted because I felt we really needed to improve our shooting.  He has not been a disappointment. He had a very solid year as a rookie.  Jaylen also had a very good rookie year.

However as good as Hield is and as good as Jaylen is, neither are on the same plateau as Fultz.  

Jackson over Fultz makes great sense if we did not use the #3 pick last year on Jaylen

While both Crowder and Brown are locked up on user friendly contracts we still do not know what will happen with IT, AB and MS.  For this reason we need to add Fultz to the mix.  

I cannot make a logical case for Jackson.

Dboss

[dboss]

I want to also point out again that DA had the hots to add a young athletic 3 for at least two years.  Check the box on that one.

Too many times Boston has had multiple first rounders and he has not been able to move up. There is no way Danny trades down.  The only player Saco had that may have been of interest is cousins.  

Dboss

[bobheckler]

you still did not tell me where our #1 pick is??? Was it traded???

Rosalie,

I'm saying is "what if Danny drafts Josh Jackson with the #1 pick, and not Markelle Fultz like everybody is assuming"?


bob


.

[swish]

There are enough ifs in the potential for the list of high draft picks to make me even more positive that I'm hopping that Danny is able to package our # 1 picks ( this year or next year) for an already super elite player like  Davis, Butler, George, Cousins, or even griffin if he were to get a complete health clearance. And who knows if Drummond's name might also appear on the available list. Try hard Danny and even if a deal is not practical this year - then there's always next year.

 swish

[NYCelt]

However as good as Hield is and as good as Jaylen is, neither are on the same plateau as Fultz.  

Jackson over Fultz makes great sense if we did not use the #3 pick last year on Jaylen

While both Crowder and Brown are locked up on user friendly contracts we still do not know what will happen with IT, AB and MS.  For this reason we need to add Fultz to the mix.  

I cannot make a logical case for Jackson.

Dboss

dboss,

I generally agree with the above, although I think Jackson's shooting will work out.

My alternative to Fultz would be Tatum over Jackson anyway. I would not be surprised if Tatum could nearly step into the SF spot with our current roster. I like Brown a lot, and hope he wears green for a long time, but I see him more as a wing coming off the bench. I think Tatum could be more of the shooter we need, and I think he will have a more complete, well rounded game than Brown. I think that Tatum, likely to go top 4, is going to be a force in the NBA. And quickly.

Still, the answer here is Fultz.

Regards

[RosalieTCeltics]

i understand that Bob, just being a pain in the ..... I found out that the Celtics swapped their own pick for Brooklyn's #1

[kdp59]

bob, a couple of notes about the Kings,

http://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/SAC.html

Gay has a player option for about $14M for next year. Not sure what he is going to do coming off the injury this year. I could see his agents telling him its best to take the $14M, frankly.

McLemore, Collison and Lawson are all UFA's next season.So the Kings have Heild, Afflalo and late first rounder this year Richardson ONLY under contract next year. Galloway has a player option at $5.4M so he too could be back.

Just to clarify.

[kdp59]

as to your original post.

drafting Jackson at #1 would put us in the same place as picking Fultz, IMO.

IF we draft Fultz and don't expect to have to trade one of our other guards, then the same can be said for drafting Jackson and not having to move Crowder or Jaylen.

In fact, Jackson and Jaylen can both swing back to the 2 guard spot (especially defensively). Fultz cannot play against NBA SF's however. Crowder can play small ball 4 also.

Jackson gives us MORE flexibility than drafting Fultz to be honest. OF course that assume that Danny feels Jackson is the better pick or they are equal.

[RosalieTCeltics]

Who goes if DA trades for a shooter/forward

[bobheckler]

as to your original post.

drafting Jackson at #1 would put us in the same place as picking Fultz, IMO.

IF we draft Fultz and don't expect to have to trade one of our other guards, then the same can be said for drafting Jackson and not having to move Crowder or Jaylen.

In fact, Jackson and Jaylen can both swing back to the 2 guard spot (especially defensively). Fultz cannot play against NBA SF's however. Crowder can play small ball 4 also.

Jackson gives us MORE flexibility than drafting Fultz to be honest. OF course that assume that Danny feels Jackson is the better pick or they are equal.

kdp,

I, for one, think that a player we would consider part of our core will be gone.  In my opinion, are not going to carry IT and Bradley and Smart and Rozier and Fultz.  That's almost half the team being guards, and not one of them over 6'4".  If we draft Jackson then we could carry Crowder and Brown and Jackson, but I don't think we will. If Brown and Jackson can play some two then that makes having the 4 guards (IT, AB, TR and MS) overkill too.

I think it might come down to these things (all just my opinion, of course):

1.  Does Danny take the money player?  That would be Fultz.
2.  Is Danny trying to be predictive, like the way he tried to be with Jeff Green, and get a Greek Freak type of point forward in Jackson?
3.  Is Danny sufficiently enamored with our current crop of youth that he's willing to trade the #1 for a player that will help us win within the next 3-4 years like Paul George?  

All of these are good scenarios for us, I think.  

Fultz is the consensus #1 pick by everybody.  I have not seen one mock draft all year that puts anybody in front of him and, for a draft that is allegedly quite deep, that is pretty impressive.  There is a lot of excellent talent at the top of this draft and, still, none of them are supplanting him.

Jackson (or Tatum) are both excellent players and if they can fit the Freak's mold then Danny just positioned us for a nice run well into the 3rd decade of the 21st century. Granted 6'8" isn't 6'11", but it's the tallest point player we've ever had.

Landing a top echelon player is always a good thing.  IT, George and Horford is a pretty decent 3 and if we can add around them...Let's remember, when we got KG and Ray we had a future HOF 3, but they were all on the back side of 30.  Rondo was only in his 2nd year and mostly an unknown quantity.  Danny then filled the gaps around them.  Look at GSW and Cleveland.  They got their Big 3s and then Ring Wraiths flocked to their banners, begging to be included.  Players like Zaza and McGee and David West and Deron and Frye. Zaza starts for GSW but the rest are bench players and any one of them is better than any bench player we have. That's the way it works, nothing succeeds like success. So, I wouldn't be surprised if Danny tries to repeat 2007 by trading a bunch of excellent talent for a star and then back filling.


bob


.

[red16russ11]

I am all in on Fultz. However, Bob does present an interesting dilemma. Danny will pick the best available player in his mind, and that could be Fultz, Jackson, or even Tatum. For us all to think we've figured Danny out is folly. The Leonard comparisons some scouts are giving are intriguing to me. But, I still think we need scorers. I don't think he'll be there at 3, so trading with PHI may be out. If we don't take him, I think the lakers will. It's a tough but nice spot to be in.

[Rmbone]

Steve’s Notebook:

With reports surfacing that the LA Lakers and former UCLA guard Lonzo Ball have finalized the details of a workout and face to face meeting in LA next week, there is a growing sense that unless Lonzo absolutely blows the doors off, he may not be the Lakers’ guy.

The Lakers are weeks away from needing to make their final decision, but there are many that believe the Lakers could go after both Kansas forward Josh Jackson and Kentucky guard De’Aaron Fox (who made my Mock at 2 this week) with the second overall pick. It’s become so real that Ball’s camp, which started the process saying he’d only meet with the Lakers, have expressed a willingness to meet with the Philadelphia 76ers and possibly the Sacramento Kings depending on how things go with the Lakers. Neither are expected to get a workout out of Ball, but both may get a chance for a face to face meeting.

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/2017-nba-consensus-mock-draft-ver-5-0/amp/

Another source saying the Lakers really like Jackson, especially Luke Walton. Skip to 1:17

[Rmbone]

I am all in on Fultz.  However, Bob does present an interesting dilemma. Danny will pick the best available player in his mind, and that could be Fultz, Jackson, or even Tatum.  For us all to think we've figured Danny out is folly.  The Leonard comparisons some scouts are giving are intriguing to me.  But, I still think we need scorers.  I don't think he'll be there at 3, so trading with PHI may be out.  If we don't take him, I think the lakers will.  It's a tough but nice spot to be in.

Jackson is as talented a scorer as anybody in this draft, in addition to being the best defender.

Jackson could have averaged 25 ppg on that Washington team Fultz padded stats on.

[bobheckler]

I am all in on Fultz.  However, Bob does present an interesting dilemma. Danny will pick the best available player in his mind, and that could be Fultz, Jackson, or even Tatum.  For us all to think we've figured Danny out is folly.  The Leonard comparisons some scouts are giving are intriguing to me.  But, I still think we need scorers.  I don't think he'll be there at 3, so trading with PHI may be out.  If we don't take him, I think the lakers will.  It's a tough but nice spot to be in.

Hi Red, welcome to the board!  Always nice to add a member who agrees with me.  

Feel free to jump in anytime or start threads on your own, either cut-and-pastes from another source that you think would make for great conversation here or original ideas of your own.  

While anybody is allowed on the board, including non-Celtic fans, I'm assuming you are a Celtic fan from your statement that "if WE don't take him".  Right?


bob


.

[fierce]

Right now Fultz is more of a sure thing.

With Josh Jackson, there's a chance he might end up the next Michael Kidd-Gilchrist.

[red16russ11]

I am all in on Fultz.  However, Bob does present an interesting dilemma. Danny will pick the best available player in his mind, and that could be Fultz, Jackson, or even Tatum.  For us all to think we've figured Danny out is folly.  The Leonard comparisons some scouts are giving are intriguing to me.  But, I still think we need scorers.  I don't think he'll be there at 3, so trading with PHI may be out.  If we don't take him, I think the lakers will.  It's a tough but nice spot to be in.

Hi Red, welcome to the board!  Always nice to add a member who agrees with me.  

Feel free to jump in anytime or start threads on your own, either cut-and-pastes from another source that you think would make for great conversation here or original ideas of your own.  

While anybody is allowed on the board, including non-Celtic fans, I'm assuming you are a Celtic fan from your statement that "if WE don't take him".  Right?


bob


.

Thank you, Bob. As you know, I was also hedleylamarr. Looking for a fresh, optimistic and positive perspective here. Posting on another board has become too negative. And this is a great time to be a Celtics fan, I do not need negativity. What a great year we had, and it can only get better. YES, I am a Celtics fan........since 1972. Thanks for the welcome!!

[Rmbone]

Celtics have one guy who can attack the basket off the dribble, in IT, and one in training, in Jaylen.

People say we need 3 point shooting, but we really need scoring off the dribble at the rim. We have plenty of solid 3 point shooters.

Josh Jackson is better at scoring off the dribble at the rim than Fultz, by a large margin. Jackson is the most talented shooting guard prospect in a long long time, better than Wiggins, and better than Fultz at shooting guard.

But of course, anybody who is 6'8 is not just automatically, mindlessly labeled a small forward, but they're actually always labeled a combo-forward. Shooting guard never crosses peoples' minds when thinking about a 6'8 player, unless they're a lights out 3 point shooter.

People think shooting guard and they think 3 point sniper, but many, if not most of the best shooting guards in NBA history were below average 3 point shooters.

TOP 10 SHOOTING GUARDS http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarankSGs/ranking-top-10-shooting-guards-ever

1. Michael Jordan 32.7% career 3 point shooting %
2. Kobe Bryant 32.9% career 3 point shooting %
3. Jerry West
4. Dwyane Wade 28.7% career 3 point shooting %
5. Clyde Drexler 31.8% career 3 point shooting %
6. Allen Iverson 31.3% career 3 point shooting %
7. George Gervin
8. Ray Allen
9. Reggie Miller
10. Earl Monroe


Josh Jackson is very much in the mold of Jordan, Kobe, and Clyde Drexler, but he's already a much better 3 point shooter and passer than any of those guys were at the same age. And Jordan was drafted 3rd, Kobe drafted 13th, and Clyde drafted 14th.

Likewise, Paul George was drafted 10th, Giannis was drafted 15th, Jimmy Butler was drafted 30th, and Kawhi Leonard was drafted 15th.

Does anybody see a pattern? And remember, the Blazers passed on Jordan because they didn't see how he would fit with Clyde Drexler. Just like people now are wondering how Josh would fit with Jaylen and Jae.

[Rmbone]

Right now Fultz is more of a sure thing.

With Josh Jackson, there's a chance he might end up the next Michael Kidd-Gilchrist.

No chance. He's already much better than MKG. That's how bad these "draft experts" are at scouting. They don't even actually scout, they just pick the guy with the flashier college stats and declare that he's "safer".

That's why they ranked Hield above Jaylen Brown last year, because Hield was "safe" and "draft experts" aren't experts.

The only reason scouts are even saying that Jackson is a bad shooter is because he had that reputation from high school, and that reputation feels "safer" to these morons than Jackson's lights out shooting from 3.

Fultz padded stats on a bad team, doing nothing in the way of leadership or inspiration to actually make his team better. People don't stop to think about situation, and how others would have done in that same situation. It requires too much imagination, like actually thinking about how these guys are going to translate to the NBA.

[fierce]

Celtics have one guy who can attack the basket off the dribble, in IT, and one in training, in Jaylen.

People say we need 3 point shooting, but we really need scoring off the dribble at the rim. We have plenty of solid 3 point shooters.

Josh Jackson is better at scoring off the dribble at the rim than Fultz, by a large margin. Jackson is the most talented shooting guard prospect in a long long time, better than Wiggins, and better than Fultz at shooting guard.

But of course, anybody who is 6'8 is not just automatically, mindlessly labeled a small forward, but they're actually always labeled a combo-forward. Shooting guard never crosses peoples' minds when thinking about a 6'8 player, unless they're a lights out 3 point shooter.

People think shooting guard and they think 3 point sniper, but many, if not most of the best shooting guards in NBA history were below average 3 point shooters.

TOP 10 SHOOTING GUARDS http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarankSGs/ranking-top-10-shooting-guards-ever

1. Michael Jordan 32.7% career 3 point shooting %
2. Kobe Bryant  32.9% career 3 point shooting %
3. Jerry West
4. Dwyane Wade 28.7% career 3 point shooting %
5. Clyde Drexler 31.8% career 3 point shooting %
6. Allen Iverson  31.3% career 3 point shooting %
7. George Gervin
8. Ray Allen
9. Reggie Miller
10. Earl Monroe


Josh Jackson is very much in the mold of Jordan, Kobe, and Clyde Drexler, but he's already a much better 3 point shooter and passer than any of those guys were at the same age. And Jordan was drafted 3rd, Kobe drafted 13th, and Clyde drafted 14th.

Likewise, Paul George was drafted 10th, Giannis was drafted 15th, Jimmy Butler was drafted 30th, and Kawhi Leonard was drafted 15th.

Does anybody see a pattern? And remember, the Blazers passed on Jordan because they didn't see how he would fit with Clyde Drexler. Just like people now are wondering how Josh would fit with Jaylen and Jae.

That's not a fair statement.
Hindsight is always 20-20.

Sure it would've been better if the Blazers got Jordan instead of Sam Bowie, but the Blazers were still in the finals in 1990 and 1992.

Both Jordan and Drexler met in the finals in 1992.
So passing on Jordan didn't prevent the Blazers from going to the top.
It's just unfortunate that the Blazers couldn't win it all.
But they got there.

The mistake of the Blazers was not doing due diligence on the health of Sam Bowie.

Clyde Drexler is a future hall of famer.

Only reason why the Blazers look so stupid for passing on Jordan is because Jordan ended up being GOAT.

Unless you're going to tell me that Josh Jackson will end up being GOAT, Fultz is still the best pick for a number reasons.

We're not even sure if Josh Jackson will end up being better than Jaylen Brown.

[fierce]

Right now Fultz is more of a sure thing.

With Josh Jackson, there's a chance he might end up the next Michael Kidd-Gilchrist.

No chance. He's already much better than MKG. That's how bad these "draft experts" are at scouting. They don't even actually scout, they just pick the guy with the flashier college stats and declare that he's "safer".

That's why they ranked Hield above Jaylen Brown last year, because Hield was "safe" and "draft experts" aren't experts.

The only reason scouts are even saying that Jackson is a bad shooter is because he had that reputation from high school, and that reputation feels "safer" to these morons than Jackson's lights out shooting from 3.

Fultz padded stats on a bad team, doing nothing in the way of leadership or inspiration to actually make his team better. People don't stop to think about situation, and how others would have done in that same situation. It requires too much imagination, like actually thinking about how these guys are going to translate to the NBA.

We can't know for sure that Jaylen is already better than Hield.
It's only been 1 season.

Give it 2-3 more years before you make conclusion.

If we base it on just 1 year then there's no way Jimmy Butler is better than Derrick Williams.
Williams was the #2 pick, Butler the 30th pick in 2011.
After 1 year Williams was better than Butler.
Did that hold?

Give it 2-3 more years.

[Sponsored content]