# Still want to trade Jack?



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I defy anyone who watched tonight's game to tell me that Jarrett Jack is not a tremendous ball player. The guy is fearless, gutsy, and tenacious. He will take the ball to the hoop even if King Kong is standing in front of him. He hits big shots, gets big rebounds, and shows real leadership on the court. Yes, this was just one game, but you have to admit he's had a few of these games this year and he seems to be getting better every season. I say we'd be making a mistake if we got rid of Jarrett Jack.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Talkhard said:


> I defy anyone who watched tonight's game to tell me that Jarrett Jack is not a tremendous ball player. The guy is fearless, gutsy, and tenacious. He will take the ball to the hoop even if King Kong is standing in front of him. He hits big shots, gets big rebounds, and shows real leadership on the court. Yes, this was just one game, but you have to admit he's had a few of these games this year and he seems to be getting better every season. I say we'd be making a mistake if we got rid of Jarrett Jack.


Well, everyone here is screaming at the thought of Rudy. Not to mention, people think we're going to draft or get a new PG. That leaves Jack the odd man out.

And cmon, it's Memphis.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> And cmon, it's Memphis.


Yeah, the same Memphis team that usually kicks our butt.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Nope! Keep Jack!


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

He's a great piece off the bench, but he is also a great trade piece. Choices...


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

Yes. I just don't want Conley Jr. or Lowery in return. 

If Jack kicks Nash's butt in the final game, then I'll take more notice.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I'm very happy he's improving his trade value. :biggrin:

Kudos to Jack for some good games lately. :clap:


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

I'm piss drunk right now and high as a kite after the game, so I'm not in a rational state of mind and probably shouldn't answer this question right now.

That said, I just wish the guy could have played smarter and consistently this season, I wanted so bad for him to be that longterm answer at PG ... who knows maybe he's saved his job with the last couple of weeks of play (doubtful), and I certainly wouldn't be averse to keeping him to see how he develops, but this team has too many bodies at the 1 and with Rudy coming over the guard rotation is just going to be even more crowded unless somebody gets moved, and based on the way he's played Jarret vs. Blake looks like a no brainer to be the odd man out.

Somehow I have a feeling that we haven't heard the last of Jack ... he'll probably develop into a chauncey billups type player 2 or 3 years from now and we'll be thinking Jermaine O'Neal all over again.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

Well, considering most people (including myself) view the point guard position as our biggest weakness, and he isn't even the best point guard on the team...yeah, I still would look to trade him. It all depends on what you get in return, of course.


----------



## timmay (Jan 14, 2008)

It depends on what you want.

Do you want a player who gives you 2 bad games, 2 ok games, and 1 spectacular game in a 5-game span, or 5 solid games during that span, no killer turnovers, but no special moments or plays?

I'm hesitant to get rid of Jack for the same reasons mentioned (especially the fact that consistency builds over time). But he's so inconsistent, and makes killer turnovers, that it's tough to say "keep him!". Especially if he sulks if his role is reduced next year. Or worse, his role isn't reduced and he plays like this season again.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

He didn't play a good game, he played a good half... second half. He was beyond dreadful in the first half, it was just unbearable to watch him in the first half. He played a great second half, but remember it was Sergio who transformed the tempo of this game for both teams and that was when the Blazers came back.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

I'm not swayed by one game, or a handful of games at the end of the season. He still needs to go after this season because his minutes need to go to playing Rudy and developing a much more promising talent. If given the power to control the minutes both of those players were to receive if they both were on this team next year, the only way Jack would get on the court was if Rudy was injured.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

Sambonius said:


> He didn't play a good game, he played a good half... second half. He was beyond dreadful in the first half, it was just unbearable to watch him in the first half. He played a great second half, but remember it was Sergio who transformed the tempo of this game for both teams and that was when the Blazers came back.


good point...he didn't even have a point in the first half. The posts that judge a player on one game (or in this case, one half) drive me crazy. You can make a case for anyone being good based on a small sample size. Even Darius Miles scored 47 once!


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

These last few games don't change the fact that he wasn't good for some 70 other games. I don't see how will remain here next year with Rudy.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Yes, I still say trade Jack. 1 game does not forgive the others.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Jarrett Jack a tremendous basketball player? eh... I wouldn't go there, but I have a feeling that he will be around next season.

The thing I notice most, I don't know if anyone else has, is after he makes a stupid, dumb mistake like a turnover, he'll come right back and make a layup, draw an And-1 to make up for it, and he knows he goofed up the last possession. You can see it on his face. If only he didn't make some of those glaringly bad decisions..

It'll be a tough decision whether to keep him around or not. He is well-liked (by teammates that is) and he is only in his third season.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> good point...he didn't even have a point in the first half. The posts that judge a player on one game (or in this case, one half) drive me crazy. You can make a case for anyone being good based on a small sample size. Even Darius Miles scored 47 once!


Did you see Navarro shake Jack out of his shoes time and time again? Horrible. Or how about when he inbound the ball and didn't pass to a wide open Outlaw swinging by and instead threw it to Roy with 2 on the clock which forced Roy to shoot an airball. People miss the simple stuff. You start becoming schizo if you keep asking basing opinions off one game. I'm glad you understand that.


----------



## bigbailes (Jul 6, 2006)

let me defy you talkhard. my biggest gripe with jack is that his passes are rarely on target. sure, they make it into our players hands (sometimes) but they have to reach for it or dig it off the ground. he never seems to make a pass to a guy in a good postition to shoot.


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

Well one of them needs to go. And I don't want to get rid of Sergio or Blake right now. If we get Rudy then I say Jack goes. If we don't get Rudy then he stays another year. KP will know soon enough. The draft will get us back ups. Not sure at what position, but a back up none the less. Stock pile as much talent as possible for next summer.This summer will be quiet compared to last year and next year. I am good with that.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

What, you think two decent performances in two meaningless games at the end of the season should erase a season of stupid turnovers and bad decisions? Dream on. With the coming of Rudy and the lottery pick, we probably won't have room for him next fall anyway.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Please keep Jack, he is easily our best point guard and Blake is more suited to be a back up. I still would like Westbrook in the drat, but BPA is what I want to get. If they are better than Jack, then so be it, but for now, Jack is legit.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

A broken clock is right... twice a day. 

Sorry, but I'm not going to get excited over two games. The guy has made so many mistakes over the course of the season, I'm supposed to forget all that because he played well in two of the last three games of the season?


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> The guy is fearless, gutsy, and tenacious.


He has just about all the intangibles you'd want out of a player, except decision making. That's why I liked him and rooted for him earlier in the year. When he doesn't produce, his poor decisions are just too much to handle. When he plays like tonight, they're suddenly something you can live with. He can bring a lot to the team, it just comes down to whether we think his decisions on the court will get better with experience, because they need to. 

So I'd say that he's in the category several others are in; trade him if the right deal comes our way, otherwise it might be best to keep him, as opposed to giving him away. Although I do worry about what might happen if Rudy comes over and gets alot of minutes. The last thing we need is playing time distractions. I don't doubt Jack is a team guy, he just strikes me as the type who wouldn't take a significant decrease in minutes 'quietly'.

Whether we get "Good Jack" or "Bad Jack", you're always aware that he's out there, I'll give him that.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Sometimes Jack can get a little out of control, but since the win streak, he has really ran the fast break nicely..and I know this because I was one of his biggest critics during his career about that..but damn his fast breaks usually end in dunks for the other Blazers. He had the oop to Brandon against Dallas and he hit LA in stride for a 2 handed flush tonight.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Jack's poor decision making is hard to watch. I have never seen a player leave his feet before throwing a pass more than Jack does. I love his fire, but his play simply isn't that good. Trade him. 

He might end up being the best PG we have, but with Blake, Sergio, Roy, Koponen, our 08' pick, FA $, and possible trade options I think it would be best to trade him.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm happy he is playing better, means we might get more for him in trade. I don't see him being in the long range goals of the Blazers.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MAS RipCity said:


> Please keep Jack, he is easily our best point guard and Blake is more suited to be a back up. I still would like Westbrook in the drat, but BPA is what I want to get. If they are better than Jack, then so be it, but for now, Jack is legit.


If he's our best PG, then we have to trade him because he's a horrible PG. And to that comment, no he isn't our best PG. Brandon by himself is a better PG.


----------



## World B. Free (Mar 28, 2008)

Ruff Draft said:


> He's a great piece off the bench, but he is also a great trade piece. Choices...


+1


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> He didn't play a good game, he played a good half... second half.


You could just as easily be talking about Roy, who was invisible in the first half.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Are you kidding?

Trade "Tremendous" Jack?

How can you say such a thing after seeing his 2 alley oops to TO for dual backwards dunks in the last minute of the game?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XhfOaOwgtAA

Oh wait, that's Sergio.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Jack, it has been nice knowing you. Good luck in your future endeavours. Hasta la Bye-Bye. Lehitraot. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. 


Seriously, it is good he has been playing well -- good trade bait. If we can get anything close to value, he should be traded. With Rudy here, there is no PT for Jarrett.

iWatas


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Are you kidding?
> 
> Trade "Tremendous" Jack?
> 
> ...


Yes, the same Sergio who turns the ball over all the time.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

No offense to Sergio and not taking anything away, but I saw Trav wide open all the way up from 329...those were some of the easiest alley oop passes to throw...so while yes they were sick passes, nothing to make Sergio seem better than he is.


----------



## Blaz06Draft (Jan 7, 2008)

Jack's last six games: 14.5 points, 5.3 assists, 2.0 turnovers, 3.8 rebounds, 35 minutes.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

Blaz06Draft said:


> Jack's last six games: 14.5 points, 5.3 assists, 2.0 turnovers, 3.8 rebounds, 35 minutes.


Jack's last 81 games: 9.9 points, 3.9 assists, 2.20 turnovers, 2.9 rebounds, 43% from the field, 33% from behind the 3pt line, 87% FT shooter, 27 minutes

How about we don't start using small sample sizes only?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Jayps15 said:


> Jack's last 81 games: 9.9 points, 3.9 assists, 2.20 turnovers, 2.9 rebounds, 43% from the field, 33% from behind the 3pt line, 87% FT shooter, 27 minutes
> 
> How about we don't start using small sample sizes only?


How about we acknowledge that he's making progress?


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Jack's last 81 games: 9.9 points, 3.9 assists, 2.20 turnovers, 2.9 rebounds, 43% from the field, 33% from behind the 3pt line, 87% FT shooter, 27 minutes
> 
> How about we don't start using small sample sizes only?


totally agree.

I was amazed about how many shots Jack took and missed, and that he stupidly got a foul and gave up free throws, or his turnovers, or when he wouldn't pass to outlaw for a wide open shot with 2 seconds on the shot clock, but tried to look elsewhere and forced us into an airball.

My dad always defends Jack. And when i'm in awe about how he could do such a stupid thing, he always defends him and says he is trying to make something happen. But after the game I was laying down in my bed and he came over and said, "I see what you mean about Jack, he just isn't very smart". He was amazed that Jack always had to jump before he passed and ended up trying to force something because he had to pass before he hit the ground.

Lots of things i like about Jack. But lets be serious, he is nothing but a replaceable role-player. I'm one of the people that think if he isn't here next year, we will miss him mightily because of what he brings to the table. Free throw shooting, driving, vocal leadership... but to me, his cons out weigh the posititves. I'd rather improve the team.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> I defy anyone who watched tonight's game to tell me that Jarrett Jack is not a tremendous ball player. The guy is fearless, gutsy, and tenacious. He will take the ball to the hoop even if King Kong is standing in front of him. He hits big shots, gets big rebounds, and shows real leadership on the court. Yes, this was just one game, but you have to admit he's had a few of these games this year and he seems to be getting better every season. I say we'd be making a mistake if we got rid of Jarrett Jack.



How about, makes lots of turnovers. Makes lots of untimely turnovers. Tends to have good games against teams like Memphis, who stink and have no shot blocking inside. I'll tell you what. When Jack finally has more then 1 good game in a row, come talk to me.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

i like jack dont get me wrong...just not on our team...he is a SCORER...a ok passer...but not a great playmaker...i like jj but i would rather have someone like westbrook or calderon or someone


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

MAS RipCity said:


> No offense to Sergio and not taking anything away, but I saw Trav wide open all the way up from 329...those were some of the easiest alley oop passes to throw...so while yes they were sick passes, nothing to make Sergio seem better than he is.


I agree, it's nothing to make Sergio seem better than he is. Those are average passes for him; he makes those plays in stride. Too bad Nate's handling of Sergio makes him seem worse than he is. If Jack had attempted those passes, OTOH, I would have held my breath expecting the first to clang off the backboard, and the second to hit Travis in the knees. That is IF Jack could have gotten himself in position in time to throw the second one, or even seen the play develop. It's much more likely he would have dribbled straight to the basket for the 'and one' opportunity. I don't mean to unload on Jack after one of his rare good stretches of play, but the JJ I've watched all season is more often a detriment than not. He is not a good PG, and he can be upgraded at backup SG. I wish him well.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

Talkhard said:


> How about we acknowledge that he's making progress?


Last season compared to this season, with some stats adjusted to per 48 to make up for his reduced playing time-

06-07 17.12ppg, 7.55apg, 3.77rpg, 3.39topg, 1.56spg, 2.23 A/TO ratio, 45.4 FG%, 35.0 3pt%, 87.1 FT%

07-08 17.44ppg, 6.77apg, 5.06rpg, 3.86topg, 1.32spg, 1.75 A/TO ratio, 42.9 FG%, 33.5 3pt%, 87.0 FT%

How about we don't?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

hasoos said:


> Tends to have good games against teams like Memphis, who stink and have no shot blocking inside.


You must have dozed off the night that Jack scored 30 points against the Lakers. Oh, and the Lakers have the best record in the west this year, by the way.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Jayps15 said:


> Last season compared to this season, with some stats adjusted to per 48 to make up for his reduced playing time-
> 
> 06-07 17.12ppg, 7.55apg, 3.77rpg, 3.39topg, 1.56spg, 2.23 A/TO ratio, 45.4 FG%, 35.0 3pt%, 87.1 FT%
> 
> 07-08 17.44ppg, 6.77apg, 5.06rpg, 3.86topg, 1.32spg, 1.75 A/TO ratio, 42.9 FG%, 33.5 3pt%, 87.0 FT%


Stats are nice, but they don't tell the whole story. They don't show how many times Jack takes the ball to the rim, for example, or how many times he hits a big shot when the clock is winding down, or at the end of the game. They also don't show grit, or courage, or resilience--all of which have been on display in the last few games.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Stats are nice, but they don't tell the whole story. They don't show how many times Jack takes the ball to the rim, for example, or how many times he hits a big shot when the clock is winding down, or at the end of the game. They also don't show grit, or courage, or resilience--all of which have been on display in the last few games.


They also don't show poor defense, or trying to force it yourself when it's a 3v1 fast break, or jumping in the air before he passes. Seriously, those are things you learn in middle school. It's called the three man weave....


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

Talkhard said:


> Stats are nice, but they don't tell the whole story. They don't show how many times Jack takes the ball to the rim, for example, or how many times he hits a big shot when the clock is winding down, or at the end of the game. They also don't show grit, or courage, or resilience--all of which have been on display in the last few games.


And where were all of these things the rest of the season? Intangibles are wonderful to rave about, but the game of basketball is won by scoring more points than your opponent, which is better accomplished by getting easier baskets(assists), shooting a high percentage (FG%, 3pt%, ft%), not turning the ball over, and getting rebounds and defensive stops.

Having grit and heart is great, but I'd rather have someone who either can or has the potential to do the actual things that win games of basketball, not win fan support.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

Sambonius said:


> He didn't play a good game, he played a good half... second half.





Talkhard said:


> You could just as easily be talking about Roy, who was invisible in the first half.


Talkhard, you just pointed out why you can't judge someone on a small sample size. 

You wouldn't call Roy a weak basketball player based on one half, just as you shouldn't call Jack a tremendous one based on one half, either.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> Talkhard, you just pointed out why you can't judge someone on a small sample size.
> 
> You wouldn't call Roy a weak basketball player based on one half, just as you shouldn't call Jack a tremendous one based on one half, either.


The original poster was pointing out that Jack didn't have a good game--only a good half. I was simply pointing out that you could say the same thing about Roy last night.

I wasn't trying to make a general point--only a point about last night's game.

However, my opinion of Jack is not based solely on last night. It's based on a number of big games he's had recently, and on the fact that he is the only guy who consistently (and fearlessly) takes the ball to the hoop.

On a side note, I'm a little concerned about Roy, who seems like a shadow of himself lately. Where are all those drives to the hoop that he used to be so good at?


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

Talkhard said:


> Stats are nice, but they don't tell the whole story. They don't show how many times Jack takes the ball to the rim, for example, or how many times he hits a big shot when the clock is winding down, or at the end of the game. They also don't show grit, or courage, or resilience--all of which have been on display in the last few games.


Stats also don't show how many times he stepped on the sidelines. I swear, if the NBA had such a stat, Jack would be leading the league by a mile.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Jayps15 said:


> Having grit and heart is great, but I'd rather have someone who either can or has the potential to do *the actual things that win games of basketball . . .*


And you don't think Jack did those things last night? My God, we must have been watching different games.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> The original poster was pointing out that Jack didn't have a good game--only a good half. I was simply pointing out that you could say the same thing about Roy last night.
> 
> I wasn't trying to make a general point--only a point about last night's game.


I'm not sure I follow. So you weren't trying to make a general point on Brandon based on his poor half, but you are trying to make a point on Jack based on his good half?


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Where's the James Jones retraction thread? James had an amazing game last night and everyone has been talking about letting HIM go.... where's THAT thread?


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> The original poster was pointing out that Jack didn't have a good game--only a good half. I was simply pointing out that you could say the same thing about Roy last night.
> 
> I wasn't trying to make a general point--only a point about last night's game.
> 
> ...


I see you edited your statement to clarify. You have to understand that when you start a post after someone has a good game, and in it you say "I defy anyone who watched tonight's game to tell me that Jarrett Jack is not a tremendous ball player." people may get the idea that you are judging him based on the aforementioned game. I know you're a consistant Jack backer, so perhaps I should have known better. 

But still, I think its silly to post every time "your guy" has a good game. I'm not the biggest Jack fan (I think he's ok but we should try to upgrade our PG spot), but I don't create a "We should trade Jack" post every time he has a bad game. But thats mostly because I want to avoid carpal tunnel.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> I'm not sure I follow. So you weren't trying to make a general point on Brandon based on his poor half, but you are trying to make a point on Jack based on his good half?


Once again . . . Someone said that Jack didn't have a good game--only a good second half, as if that was a flaw in his performance. I merely pointed out that the same thing could be said about Roy, who did practically nothing in the first half but ended up with 16 points and 11 assists. If you're going to criticize Jack for not showing up in the first half, you have to do the same to Roy. Comprende?


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> Once again . . . Someone said that Jack didn't have a good game--only a good second half, as if that was a flaw in his performance. I merely pointed out that the same thing could be said about Roy, who did practically nothing in the first half but ended up with 16 points and 11 assists. If you're going to criticize Jack for not showing up in the first half, you have to do the same to Roy. Comprende?


That's exactly why you don't evaluate if a player is worth trading based on one half. Because I don't think anyone wants to trade Brandon after one bad half.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

Talkhard said:


> Once again . . . Someone said that Jack didn't have a good game--only a good second half, as if that was a flaw in his performance. I merely pointed out that the same thing could be said about Roy, who did practically nothing in the first half but ended up with 16 points and 11 assists. If you're going to criticize Jack for not showing up in the first half, you have to do the same to Roy. Comprende?


Roy had 9pt and 5assists in the 1st half last night, Jack had 0pts and 3assists, not even close.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> That's exactly why you don't evaluate if a player is worth trading based on one half.


Of course not. No one in his right mind would do that.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Jayps15 said:


> Roy had 9pt and 5assists in the 1st half last night, Jack had 0pts and 3assists, not even close.


How many points did Roy have in the first quarter? I don't remember him getting a single basket in the first 12 minutes, or during that streak when Memphis started to build a big lead. He was conspicuously "absent" during a crucial stretch of the game.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> Of course not. No one in his right mind would do that.


Then why do you start a thread titled "Still want to trade Jack?" after he has a good half?

edit: forgot to include the quote


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> Then why do you start a thread titled "Still want to trade Jack?" after he has a good half?


Because last night's game was only the latest example of his excellent play.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

NateBishop3 said:


> Where's the James Jones retraction thread? James had an amazing game last night and everyone has been talking about letting HIM go.... where's THAT thread?


I really like James, but Marty can do what Jones does and he is younger. Jones is a stud but he is the easiest one to consolidate, esp if he opts out of his deal.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Jayps15 said:


> Last season compared to this season, with some stats adjusted to per 48 to make up for his reduced playing time-
> 
> 06-07 17.12ppg, 7.55apg, 3.77rpg, 3.39topg, 1.56spg, 2.23 A/TO ratio, 45.4 FG%, 35.0 3pt%, 87.1 FT%
> 
> ...


How about we acknowledge that the guy had a change of position between his 2nd and 3rd year and played mostly backup SG instead of starting PG - so an adjustment had to happen. As a SG, you want to see him score more, rebound more and get to the free-throw line more - which he did per minute this year (remember, he played 5 less MPG this year). You can expect his assists to go down as he no longer is the primary ball handler.

Let's look at these Per-36 minutes statistics and remember that he needs to evaluated as a backup SG and not a PG:

06-07: 12.8 PP36M, 2.8 RP36M, 3.8 FTAP36M, 5.7 AP36M, 2.5 TOP36M
07-08: 13.1 PP36M, 3.8 RP36M, 4.0 FTAP36M, 5.1 AP36M, 2.9 TOP36M

So - despite the adjustment of playing a new position and without the ball in his hands - he improved where you expected him to - Points, Rebounds, FT Attempts and got worse where you expected it - Assists, A/TO ratio.

Jack did not have as good a year as one would hope for - but to say that he is not progressing, especially when you consider that he lost play time and plays a significantly different role this year - is just absurd.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> I really like James, but Marty can do what Jones does and he is younger. Jones is a stud but he is the easiest one to consolidate, esp if he opts out of his deal.


I was making a point Mas. There's been a whole bunch of pro Jack fans because of his play over the past couple games, I was merely pointing out that Jones has been criticized lately and now he has a good game. Where is his thread? 

6'7 three point specialists are much harder to find than a 6'3 combo guard who can attack the rim.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Once again . . . Someone said that Jack didn't have a good game--only a good second half, as if that was a flaw in his performance. I merely pointed out that the same thing could be said about Roy, who did practically nothing in the first half but ended up with 16 points and 11 assists. If you're going to criticize Jack for not showing up in the first half, you have to do the same to Roy. Comprende?


Correct, Roy didn't havea good half... and?

Neither did Jack. But Roy has proved himself as a really good player, Jack has proved as a liabliity on both ends of the court.

Your point was that if somebody says Jack didn't play a good half, then you have to say Roy didnt? well, nobody was talking about Roy. You guys said Jack played a good game (full) and somebody pointed out he didn't... how that has anything to do with Roy...



> Jack did not have as good a year as one would hope for - but to say that he is not progressing, especially when you consider that he lost play time and plays a significantly different role this year - is just absurd.


dude, he lost play time because he played poorly....

It was his job, and he lost it. Blake didn't take it. Jack lost it.



> Because last night's game was only the latest example of his excellent play.


It was also the latest example of his horrid play in the 1st half. Also showed his turnovers, missed shots, inability to pass, hogging the ball, poor judgement on fouling with under a second left in the quarter and giving up free throws, and jumping before passing...

You can make a thread about anybody after they play a good half. Fact is, Jack has had MANY more bad games than good ones.



> How many points did Roy have in the first quarter? I don't remember him getting a single basket in the first 12 minutes, or during that streak when Memphis started to build a big lead. He was conspicuously "absent" during a crucial stretch of the game.


wait, so now you are reaching for a quarter?... where was Jack THE WHOLE HALF? You are going to try and blame Roy for a freakin' quarter when the player you are defending has hurt our team more than anybody? And that he time after time is absent for more than just a quarter?


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

MrJayremmie said:


> dude, he lost play time because he played poorly....
> 
> It was his job, and he lost it. Blake didn't take it. Jack lost it.


He lost time because the team brought someone from the outside that does the job he did better - no argument there.

But it still does not change the fact that he made progress when you consider the adjustment to a new role and the improvements in the areas he should have made in this new role.

The 2 are not mutually exclusive...

There is a funny thing happening where Sergio fans seem to be stuck on the Jack is in Sergio's way - where Jack does not play the position that takes minutes from Sergio anymore - it is Blake and Roy...


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> But it still does not change the fact that he made progress when you consider the adjustment to a new role and the improvements in the areas he should have made in this new role.


I don't understand how he is making progress. If you are talking about stats, then you are not counting his stupid plays where he forces the other player who gets the TO to turn it over. Or when he dumbly fouls, or anything like that.

In my eyes, Jack hasn't improved at all. My pre-season predictions were that Jack would be the starter and cement himself as the PG for this team in the future with smart play. I've seen flashes, but Jack has hurt the team. He got downgraded from starting PG, to backup PG, then to backup SG, which is where he is now.

His inconsistent play tells me that he has not grown as a player. You guys can blame it on playing a new position, but this is a position Jack should be comfortable with. Scoring against second units. There is no excuse for his turnovers, defense and outside jump shot, along with his inconsisten play.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

andalusian said:


> How about we acknowledge that the guy had a change of position between his 2nd and 3rd year and played mostly backup SG instead of starting PG - so an adjustment had to happen. As a SG, you want to see him score more, rebound more and get to the free-throw line more - which he did per minute this year (remember, he played 5 less MPG this year). You can expect his assists to go down as he no longer is the primary ball handler.
> 
> Let's look at these Per-36 minutes statistics and remember that he needs to evaluated as a backup SG and not a PG:
> 
> ...


Yes I did remember his playing time went down, as specifically illustrated by my adjusting his stats to per 48...

As for assuming his assist numbers should fall just because he played some (not all, at least 10mpg out of his 27 were at the PG position) of his minutes as the back up SG, I don't agree with that assumption. First of all our starting SG leads our team in assists, so saying just because he's the SG means he can't set other people up isn't a good assumption. And he does have the ball in his hands most of the time he's on the floor, he doesn't play off the ball, all his aptitude at driving requires that he has the ball.

Yes he drew more FT attempts, yes his scoring increased slightly, but what you failed to include was that his field goal and 3pt percentages both dropped significantly, meaning that that scoring increase came at the price of his efficiency and that he didn't actually get any better at scoring and just took more shots to get his numbers. 

That's not improving in my book, that's at the very best staying relatively as productive in both seasons.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

This team doesn't need a 6'3 combo guard. We need a starting point guard so we can move Steve Blake to the backup spot, and we need a backup shooting guard to spell Roy. When Rudy comes over he can fill the backup shooting guard spot, and at times he and Roy can play together. Where does Jack fit in this picture? The intangibles that you guys are putting so much of your argument behind, his ability to get to the rim and make free throws, are really not that special.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> You must have dozed off the night that Jack scored 30 points against the Lakers. Oh, and the Lakers have the best record in the west this year, by the way.


Oh and the Lakers have such good shot blocking inside....


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Jayps15 said:


> First of all our starting SG leads our team in assists, so saying just because he's the SG means he can't set other people up isn't a good assumption.


Our starting SG has the ball in his hand more than your usual SG - he is practically the playmaker on this team most of the time he is on the floor. The people playing PG for this team are Blake and Roy - and you would expect them to lead the team in assists.



Jayps15 said:


> Yes he drew more FT attempts, yes his scoring increased slightly, but what you failed to include was that his field goal and 3pt percentages both dropped significantly, meaning that that scoring increase came at the price of his efficiency and that he didn't actually get any better at scoring and just took more shots to get his numbers.
> 
> That's not improving in my book, that's at the very best staying relatively as productive in both seasons.


I am not buying this dropped significantly, his TS% has gone down from .571 to .557, that's a drop of 0.014 ... - again, totally reasonable when you consider that he plays a lot more off the ball than he did before and had to adjust - and that most of his shot attempts are now of the harder to convert now because, per his new role, he has to drive into traffic and convert at the rim against the opponent's big guys. Despite this very small TS% drop - he still leads all Blazers guards in this category... 

Yes, his 3P% is down, but he does not take that many of them anyway, his FG% is slightly down - but again, it is because he has to play a new position, off the ball for his jump-shots and attempts a lot more trying to break the defense and attack the rim.

Again, when you remember that he is playing a different new, new position and follows the coach's request to attack the rim - he is showing the improvement where he needs to. 

Just to point out - Roy's 3P%, FG% and TS% are down as well - but we do not care because we recognize that he had a change of role (focus of offense and more of a distributer that he was last year). The important things we wanted to see from Roy is taking more of a leadership role (check), converting the big plays (check), Scoring more (Check) and running the offense more (Check). Likewise, with Jack moved to a new backup SG position we wanted to see him score more (check), rebound more (check) and attack the rim more (check). 

Given the new position Jack has definitely progressed, where it matters. He still has issues that he needs to work on.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

You can't use the change of role as an excuse dude. Everyone changed their role this year. Roy, LMA, Joel, Travis.

HE was outplayed as a PG and he is in a pretty damn easy role. He still has the ball in his hands all the time when he is in, he drives and shoots, his job is to score vs. the second unit. I'm not buying that excuse.

He hurts the team by his bad decisions. His inability to lead breaks, him commiting dumb fouls, stepping on the sideline, getting blocked, trying to force a foul, refusing to pass and dribble for long periods of time and stop the rythm of the offense.

From Jack, we also wanted to see consistent play (not check) willingly passing the ball and letting the offense flow and not over dribble (not check) not forcing things (not check) and not hurting the team by dumb plays (definitely not check).


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

Comparing Roy's increased stats and expectations to Jacks and just saying that because Jack had a slight increase in some of the same areas that they both improved even near equally doesn't make any sense.

Jack's per 48min scoring went up .32ppg, Roy's went up 1.66ppg, that's a 518% differance. And to compare there shooting drop, Roy's FG% dropped 0.2%, while Jack's went down 2.5%, or a 1250% difference in regression.

Roy improved mightily this season, and to mention his improvement in the same breath as Jack's supposed improvement is insulting.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Talkhard said:


> The original poster was pointing out that Jack didn't have a good game--only a good half. I was simply pointing out that you could say the same thing about Roy last night.
> 
> I wasn't trying to make a general point--only a point about last night's game.
> 
> ...




Roy isnt worried about winning anymore, and i'm sure he's running at half speed due to him being severely banged up...


----------



## LittleAlex (Feb 14, 2008)

I believe they should trade Jack if they can get something for him. It's too bad his decision making is such a problem, since I love a lot of the other parts of his game. If we would just stop jumping to pass, it would solve a great deal of my issues. That, and if Nate would never put him in at point ever again.

Last night I saw JJ jump to make a bounce pass. That is just wrong.

IMHO, the last few wins we have had were in spite of some horrible turnovers commited by JJ. When we start to make a real push for the playoffs, we simply can't afford someone like him to get significant minutes. He stops that trend, and I would love for him to be a Blazer for his whole career. Unfortunately, he hasn't made ANY significant improvement in this area.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Yeah, the same Memphis team that usually kicks our butt.


The Blazers swept Memphis this year



Talkhard said:


> Yes, the same Sergio who turns the ball over all the time.


Though it's not a good Assist to TO ratio for a PG, Serio is at 2.2... Jack is worse at 1.8 

I defy you to look stats/facts up before you post

STOMP


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

STOMP said:


> Though it's not a good Assist to TO ratio for a PG, Serio is at 2.2... Jack is worse at 1.8
> 
> I defy you to look stats/facts up before you post
> 
> STOMP


Unfortunately, he is right. Sergio turns the ball over every 11.9 minutes, Jack only every 12.4. Both are bad. Sergio worse.

Since he did not talk about A/TO - I think his statistics are right on the money..., especially since Sergio is a PG all the time while JJ is a SG most of the time, his A/TO is not as important as his TS% and ability to get to the rim. There is a reason he is not playing starting or backup PG. Portland plays Blake, Roy and Sergio at PG - and the one with the worst A/TO of these is Sergio. No wonder he gets the least amount of minutes of them.


----------

