# Luke Jackson does not have a higher vertical than Smith or Snyder



## WarriorFan (May 27, 2004)

I'm getting sick of reading that on every single thread about Luke.

Jackson was able to reach the highest point which is not surprising due to his height and reach advantage he has over those 2. It does not mean he has a better vertical than the 6'4 J.R. Smith or the 6'6 Kirk Snyder.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>WarriorFan</b>!
> I'm getting sick of reading that on every single thread about Luke.
> 
> Jackson was able to reach the highest point which is not surprising due to his height and reach advantage he has over those 2. It does not mean he has a better vertical than the 6'4 J.R. Smith or the 6'6 Kirk Snyder.


Were you at the workout? How do you know he didn't have the highest vertical? Just by looking at some random pictures? 

Actually, to be honest I'm damn surprised Luke Jackson reached a higher point than famed jumper JR Smith, who is listed at 6'6" although he may be shorter, but I guess you know that too because you measured him.


----------



## WarriorFan (May 27, 2004)

I've seen Smith in person and if he's 6'6 than i am too.
Jackson will be a better pro but he does not have a better vertical.


----------



## Hawks4ever (Jun 6, 2002)

Either way I like Luke's game, he is perfect in a run n gun system like what Atlanta is trying to install.


----------



## jdg (Jun 13, 2003)

Whether he has a greater vertical or not doesn't really matter now does it. He can reach higher than the other guys when he jumps. Now, when I'm rebounding, I care more about how high my hands can reach, not how high my feet are off the ground.


----------



## WarriorFan (May 27, 2004)

I don't disagree with you there. I just got tired of reading "Look how athletic Jackson is! His vertical is better than Snyder or Smith's" when we don't know that.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

The workout summary explicity states that Jackson had the highest "vertical leap" of the four players at the recent Hawks camp (including Snyder and Smith). Vertical leap does not mean highest reach attained on a leap. It means the total distance from floor to the bottom of the foot attained on a leap. And, as is unequivocally stated in the following article, Jackson had a higher vertical leap (not reach) than both Snyder and Smith.

http://draftcity.com/articles/0028.htm

Jackson's athleticism is VERY underrated. Then again, a lot of guys who watch a lot of college hoops already knew that. NBA scouts and GMs usually have to see it up close to believe it.


----------



## prerak (Oct 22, 2003)

I'd like to put one clarification: JR Smith was lackluster. He may simply not have been trying as hard as he could have. As for why he would do that... I don't know. I'm stopped trying to decipher the reasoning behind his actions.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>prerak</b>!
> I'd like to put one clarification: JR Smith was lackluster. He may simply not have been trying as hard as he could have. As for why he would do that... I don't know. I'm stopped trying to decipher the reasoning behind his actions.


AMen on that, so far every workout he has had has been lackluster...WE may have another Leon Smith here.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> The workout summary explicity states that Jackson had the highest "vertical leap" of the four players at the recent Hawks camp (including Snyder and Smith). Vertical leap does not mean highest reach attained on a leap. It means the total distance from floor to the bottom of the foot attained on a leap. And, as is unequivocally stated in the following article, Jackson had a higher vertical leap (not reach) than both Snyder and Smith.
> 
> http://draftcity.com/articles/0028.htm
> ...


Ha. I knew people were underrating Luke's athleticism. Kid is going to be the steal of the draft...though it looks like more and more teams are starting to have visions of Jackson dancing around in their head...

Does anyone think that Luke might just play himself up into the lottery?


----------



## NewAnomaly (Apr 13, 2004)

We all know what this is really about.

Luke Jackson= unathletic because.....


SETEROTYPE

HE IS WHITE=HE CANT JUMP

This is B.S. Luke Jackson is going to end up being an outstanding player and scorer, and a decent defender, he will play his way up into the lottery.


This last year they on ESPN they showed about a minute and a half of Dunking highlights. Luke Jackson was the only white guy.

Jackson is athletic. Don't let skin color be a factor.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Luke Jackson is this year's Kirk Hinrich.


----------



## RocketFan85 (Jun 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>WarriorFan</b>!
> I don't disagree with you there. I just got tired of reading "Look how athletic Jackson is! His vertical is better than Snyder or Smith's" when we don't know that.


Would you feel to same way if Jackson was black?


----------



## bdw0617 (Apr 4, 2003)

seriously, how can Hinrich be a top 10 pick in a deep, front loaded draft, and Jackson is a mid-late first rounder in what could be the worst draft since the lottery era?

Boy if I was a team such as cleveland, I would trade down and smile 

He is going to be a good pro, alot like Brent Berry


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bdw0617</b>!
> seriously, how can Hinrich be a top 10 pick in a deep, front loaded draft, and Jackson is a mid-late first rounder in what could be the worst draft since the lottery era?
> 
> Boy if I was a team such as cleveland, I would trade down and smile
> ...


Hinrich had an advantage being a PG with Jackson being a SG/SF. 

Even though there might be someone better, if you are a PG or a C you are probably going to go higher because so many teams are struggling to fill those positions.


----------



## CrookedJ (May 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NewAnomaly</b>!
> We all know what this is really about.
> 
> Luke Jackson= unathletic because.....
> ...


Nice post - He is compared to Slam Dunk Champ Brent Barry by NBA Draft.net yet people still doubt it.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Ha. I knew people were underrating Luke's athleticism. Kid is going to be the steal of the draft...though it looks like more and more teams are starting to have visions of Jackson dancing around in their head...
> ...


It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Portland take him at 13, or Utah at 14. If I were a team looking for a SG/SF, I'd take Luke Jackson over Sergei Monya, J.R. Smith, Dorell Wright and Kirk Snyder. Other than Andre Iguodala and Josh Childress(Not including Josh Smith and Luol Deng because they're strictly SF's), there's no SG/SF I would rather draft this year than Luke Jackson. He has the size, athletic ability, shooting ability and work ethic to be a very good NBA player.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

For Portland I would be content with him at 13, since his stock has risen. I would have liked for him to have slipped to 23 though, as that probably will not happen now. 

I do think that Jackson will be a good pro though. Probably not an All-Star, but a really good role player for the next decade or so. He is a physical player with a clean stroke.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Jackson to me is kind of a Barry/Ginobili mix.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

Jackson reminds me of Chris Mullin with athelticism.


----------



## chapi (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> Jackson reminds me of Chris Mullin with athelticism.


if he is thet he will be the best player in the draft


----------



## Nevus (Jun 3, 2003)

Luke Jackson is a can't miss pick to be a good player in the NBA for a long time. I think Brent Barry is a great comparison. Luke Jackson also compares himself to Doug Christie on offense at least, and that's a good comparison too.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Chris Mullin and Doug Christie. Both good comparisons/frames of reference.


----------



## ill subliminal (Apr 3, 2003)

Wally Szerbiak with passing, maybe a little less shooting.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ill subliminal</b>!
> Wally Szerbiak with passing, maybe a little less shooting.


I think Jackson can shoot at least as well as Wally, and he's more athletic as well. Wally, like Luke, is smart and efficient. But I think Jackson will be the better player in three years.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Bump.

Combine results, vertical leap:

Snyder: 35"
Smith: 35.5"
Jackson: 36"


----------



## WarriorFan (May 27, 2004)

LOL...I was hoping this thread had been forgotten. I'll admit it. Jackson can leap.


----------



## jdg (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> Jackson to me is kind of a Barry/Ginobili mix.


I've been on Jackson's bandwagon for a while now. In fact, I've been a Luke & Luke fan for a few years now. That people are starting to say things like this about his is very encouraging. My dream is to somehow see Ridnour and Jackson united again, although if Seattle plans on keeping Barry, I don't see them picking up Jackson.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

I just don't get why he's such a poor defender with all these tools.


----------



## budselig (Jun 18, 2004)

I really hope comparisons between Jackson and Brent Barry stop. Soon. Brent Barry is a pg/sg; Luke Jackson is a sf/sg. Huge difference, *******s. Barry was drafted into this league to play the point. He's not exactly a pure point guard, and his pairing with Payton in Seattle allowed him to mostly assume a sg role, but he has a nasty handle and very solid passing ability. Jackson is a small forward. He has solid athleticism for someone with his skill level. Don't worry about his athleticism, worry about his ability to create his shot in the pros at the sf position (I think he should be ok at it, better than another recent sf, Battier, despite Battier's greater physical gifts) and worry about his defense (I think he may struggle here, he doesn't have enough quickness, especially laterally, to compensate for his lack of height at the sf position, and he won't be quick enough to defend most sg's). His athleticism, on offense, is fine. His ability to create a shot and to some extent his handle may be questionable His size and lack of lateral mobility will hurt him defensively both at the sf and the sg positions (he's a tweener defensively, if you like that word, but at same time he offers versatility on offense). And stop the Brent Barry comparisons. Now.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

yeah i dont like that brent barry comprison either, more manu/redd but nevertheless i wouldnt be surprised if he ends up in the 10 slot which is now held by the cavs.


----------

