# Jack - Better than you think?



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

It seems to me that since Zach has been out and the type of game the Blazers play has changed accordingly, Jack has been a much more impressive PG than previously (with Zach).

Am I alone in this thinking or are there others of you out there?

His play lately, along with Sergio's has left me thinking much more that I'd really like Jack to continue being the starter with Sergio slowly gaining more experience.

We talk occasionally about players who make their teammates better (such as Steve Nash), we've all known that Zach alters the style of ball the Blazers play but I've never really thought of him as someone who is the "anti-Nash", or someone who makes his teammates worse.

I'm not on the Mediocre Man "dump-at-any-cost-we-just-need-to-be-rid-of-him" bandwagon but I'm wondering more and more what, if any, future Zach has as a Blazer. He is statistically our best player, but as far as the team goes, we're a less talented team now but I still see us being competitive and winning games that I wouldn't have thought we'd have a chance at. Makes me think "Zach, great player, not-so-great team player".

Hmmm, started this post with the idea of Jack perhaps being better than I realized and as I typed it morphed from that into an anti-Zach post. Based on that I expect "see-I-told-you-so's" from some and "hey-wait, Zach-ain't-THAT-bad" from others. I welcome both, I want to hear y'alls opinions.

Gramps...


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

GrandpaBlaze said:


> I'm not on the Mediocre Man "dump-at-any-cost-we-just-need-to-be-rid-of-him" bandwagon but I'm wondering more and more what, if any, future Zach has as a Blazer. He is statistically our best player, but as far as the team goes, we're a less talented team now but I still see us being competitive and winning games that I wouldn't have thought we'd have a chance at. Makes me think "Zach, great player, not-so-great team player".
> 
> Hmmm, started this post with the idea of Jack perhaps being better than I realized and as I typed it morphed from that into an anti-Zach post. Based on that I expect "see-I-told-you-so's" from some and "hey-wait, Zach-ain't-THAT-bad" from others. I welcome both, I want to hear y'alls opinions.
> 
> Gramps...


Ya, it took you this long to realize it?


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I never have thought that Jack was a bad or even mediocre player. I've liked him since the draft and that really hasn't changed. So no. He's not necessarily better than I think because I already have high expectations for him.

However, I do see the point that you're making because a lot of posters seem to harp on him for whatever reason. Maybe it's because he doesn't rack up the assists at the same rate that Sergio does.


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

I think that Jack's offense when his playbook is expanded from get the ball across halfcourt and then feed Zach inside, is what makes him great and keeps him interested in games. When you allow Jack to drive and look for his shot he pulls defenses into him. He can get to the hoop and create but when Zach sets up hop in the key he takes away Jack's ability to get to the basket.

As long as Jack is confident I like him at the point. But when he gets down on himself you can tell in his play.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Some players' successes coincide with other players' absences. But that doesn't indicate that one is related to the other.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Samuel said:


> Some players' successes coincide with other players' absences. But that doesn't indicate that one is related to the other.


If you truly believe that in this instance and situation, then you are oblivious and ignorant. Every single player on the team will improve with Zach on the bench. He is the epitome of fool's gold.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Early in the year, Jack had a nice little run *while Roy was out*. Roy came back, and he faded into the woodwork. Should we draw conclusions about Roy based on that?

Sorry, but I am sick of the enablers with their "player X is stinking things up, but it is all player Y's fault!" kind of nonsense. These guys are highly paid pros - let them take a little responsibility for their own play!

:soapbox:


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

I was thinking that Jack's improved play coincided with the fact that he has played more two guard lately. He really is a combination guard ideally suited for that six man role that Michael Cooper played so well for the Lakers back in the 80's. I think he is just a bit overmatched as a starting guard but an excellent first tier back up. That's not a critical analysis. In the NBA everyone has talent.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

c_note said:


> If you truly believe that in this instance and situation, then you are oblivious and ignorant.


Jack went on a huge slump, then started playing well again while Zach also happened to be out. 

Are you going to say that I'm oblivious and ignorant for not thinking that Ime's current slump is because Zach is gone? 

No. 

I think that Jack is benefitting from Zach being out, but not to the extent that it's THE thing that caused him to come out of his slump. That's what the original poster was indicating.

(and by the way, you don't need to resort to ad hom attacks to prove your point. It makes you look foolish and takes the attention away from your argument.)


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

I appreciate the comments. I had a thought going through my head and thought I'd toss it out to see if it has validity.

Perhaps some, but not as much as I thought as I typed the original message. Sometimes you are the moderator (helping moderate others wild thoughts) and sometimes you're the moderatee.

Gramps...


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Jack is at his best when he looks to score, we all know this. He isn't the best pure point guard. When others are out, he can look to his forte and put up some great numbers. I have been very pleased with his play lately as well. He needs to be one of those point guards that knows when to shoot and when to pass.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

For Three! Rip City! said:


> I think he is just a bit overmatched as a starting guard but an excellent first tier back up.


well he's overmatched by parker, but what PG in the league wouldn't have been tonight? otherwise jack has been way above avg in the last several games, including outplaying deron the other night. playing the way he is right now consistently he would be starting for more than half the teams in the league.


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

Jack's play is a matter of confidence - if he has it, he plays well. If he gets down on himself, he mentally checks out of the game. Z-Bo is not responsible for Jack's confidence.

Does he get more looks without Zach? Sure, but that's the case with anyone on a team with a great scorer on nights when that scorer is out.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

I'm not sure what you're basing the opinion that Jack is playing better lately on.

I see just the opposite. He's getting outrun worse at both ends of the court. His D hasn't improved, nor has our offense improved. The main difference I've seen is we have lost that down-low post presence and rebounding and so we're less confident in the halfcourt.

Jack's still way too slow bringing the ball up for us to capitalize and we live and die, mostly die, by the success of our outside shooting.

Zach's departure has only made Jarrett's weaknesses more obvious and costly.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Samuel said:


> Jack went on a huge slump, then started playing well again while Zach also happened to be out.
> 
> Are you going to say that I'm oblivious and ignorant for not thinking that Ime's current slump is because Zach is gone?
> 
> ...


You indicated in your first post that it had absolutely nothing to do with Zach's absence, at least that's what you were implying. I'm not saying its the sole reason, but you don't have to take it to the opposite extreme.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> I'm not sure what you're basing the opinion that Jack is playing better lately on.


the last 4 games he's 25-38 (.658) from the field including 7-13 from 3 pt.



> His D hasn't improved


not tonight, but there have been some nice stretches where it has.





> Jack's still way too slow bringing the ball up for us to capitalize and we live and die, mostly die, by the success of our outside shooting


that's nate. notice sergio isn't pushing it up either.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> Jack is at his best when he looks to score, we all know this. He isn't the best pure point guard. When others are out, he can look to his forte and put up some great numbers. I have been very pleased with his play lately as well. He needs to be one of those point guards that knows when to shoot and when to pass.


Well said MAS RipCity:biggrin:


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

c_note said:


> You indicated in your first post that it had absolutely nothing to do with Zach's absence, at least that's what you were implying. I'm not saying its the sole reason, but you don't have to take it to the opposite extreme.


My point still stands, though. I don't even think Zach being out is a _significant_ reason that Jack is playing well. Remember, Jack played quite well earlier this season when Zach was with the team (capped by that fantastic 30-point performance).

There's a few posters quick to make inferences based upon a lineup change, or a modification in our style of play. Typically the changes are somewhat relevant, but don't really explain that much (as is the case here).

There's even a few posters that, if you read them enough, make it seem like Portland is a coaching decision away from 7-10 more wins. They're kidding themselves. Portland has shown promise this season but they're still right in that 30-win range. 

Next year's improvement will be much more dramatic. Can't wait.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

> I was thinking that Jack's improved play coincided with the fact that he has played more two guard lately. He really is a combination guard ideally suited for that six man role that Michael Cooper played so well for the Lakers back in the 80's. I think he is just a bit overmatched as a starting guard but an excellent first tier back up. That's not a critical analysis. In the NBA everyone has talent.


I absolutley agree with this statement. I think Jack could be a essential bench player for a very good team. I still think this team is Sergio's in by the start of the 2008/09 season. But, I would keep Jack as the 1st guard off the bench.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Early in the year, Jack had a nice little run *while Roy was out*. Roy came back, and he faded into the woodwork. Should we draw conclusions about Roy based on that?
> 
> Sorry, but I am sick of the enablers with their "player X is stinking things up, but it is all player Y's fault!" kind of nonsense. These guys are highly paid pros - let them take a little responsibility for their own play!
> 
> :soapbox:


Absolutely. I don't think it's a coincidence at all that Jack's production has been lower when he's played without either Roy or Zach, but it would be pretty presumptuous to blame either one of them. I think what we see is simply that Jack chooses to defer to his teammates, too much IMO, when he has other good scorers on the floor. Jack can score, but he chooses not to when the team has other options. Does that make Zach or Roy bad teammates? Hardly.

Unfortunately though, Jack isn't that great playing without the ball. He can spot up from 3 for a modest 35% (although that is way up from last year), and at times he and Roy get a nice flow going, but mostly he disappears when he defers. I'd like to see, and I said this many months ago, Jack look for his shot more. A lot of people chide him for not being the uber-enabler that Sergio is, but Jack can be very useful by putting pressure on the defense and putting the ball in the hoop. He's easily our third best player (after Zach and Roy) at creating his own offense.

As for the general thread topic, I definitely think Jack is better than many here think. He can do a little bit of everything. His production is clearly inconsistent, but I give him a pass because I think he's still learning when to be assertive and when to defer, and he's still pretty young. He's a second year point guard, and that's a tough thing to be in the NBA. Can anyone think of a major point guard in the NBA who didn't get substantially better as he got older (not counting injuries)? I can't, off the top of my head. I think Jack is doing a good job, and he will continue to improve.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Jack has been in the league for two years people! He was on a broken ankle the first. I agree he has some confidence issues but that will improve as he get older and more comfortable.

I for one need to see Sergio learn to play a shred of defense before I'm ready to give a young Chauncy Billups type of player to some drooling team, like the Lakers or even Pistons for that matter who will turn Jack into a great PG. 

Jack did fine running his team at GT and no one said he couldn't get the job done! I'd say this has way more to do with a limited playbook that revolves around a player that creates no movement at the PF spot.

The thing that surprises me is that even when Jack has a great game there are certain posters on this board that are still calling for his head. This is a great kid with a ton of postive energy and he wants to be a leader. What gives?


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

YardApe said:


> Jack has been in the league for two years people! He was on a broken ankle the first. I agree he has some confidence issues but that will improve as he get older and more comfortable.
> 
> I for one need to see Sergio learn to play a shred of defense before I'm ready to give a young Chauncy Billups type of player to some drooling team, like the Lakers or even Pistons for that matter who will turn Jack into a great PG.
> 
> ...


He might be a decent combo guard in the future, like others have said, but he's not a true point guard. Sergio is. Jack has horrible court vision for a point guard, and his passing skills are mediocre at best. I rarely see him make the type of passes that make you say "Wow, now thats NBA basketball!", although he does from time to time. 

He is not a future starter, he just doesn't have any point guard talent (aside from his ability to create his own shot). Why should the team keep wasting minutes with him? I say trade him this off-season for a veteran who can guide the team to the playoffs next year, sharing the minutes with Sergio. Sergio does need to improve his defense, but remember he came straight from Europe at 20 years of age. Noone can reasonably assume a European point guard will be able to guard anyone in the NBA for at least a year or two.

The point is, Jack is not going to get much better with his point-guard duties any time soon. It's gonna take him at least another 5 years, as almost all players get a better feel for the game later in their careers. Package him with Zach, get a veteran point-guard, draft Horford (worst-case scenario hopefully) and start LMA, Joel and Travis next year, with Raef and maybe another solid forward we pick in the Zach trade (or maybe Darius Miles *cough*).

If I was running the team, this is the way I'd do it. Of course its just my opinion. :biggrin: 

PS
A young Chauncey Billups? LOL


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

If Jack is willing to settle for a "3rd guard" roll, I would be perfectly content to see the team keep him - at least while he is on his rookie contract.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Oldmangrouch said:


> If Jack is willing to settle for a "3rd guard" roll, I would be perfectly content to see the team keep him - at least while he is on his rookie contract.


Ya that would be the ideal role for Jack. I think ol' Freddie would play that role much better than Jarrett would though. I love Freddie's game, but man he needs to develop an outside shot! Maybe it actually is his hand injury or whatever, like the announcers keep mentioning. He's better than Jack at all aspects of the game except shooting (kind of ironic). 

Hmm, that makes me wonder why Jack is even playing over Freddie. I guess his jumper is just that bad.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

I love that many of you have already written Jack off and are ready to hand the team over to Sergio after less than a handful of starts. Please note in the playoffs, basketball becomes a half court game and you will see great PG's like Nash and Kidd suffer with this format. Tell me the last time a great vision PG won a championship? If that was the case Kidd would have a ring on every finger and so would Nash and Stokten. Wouldn't Telfair still be here? Who gets the rings, Devon George, Chauncy and Parker. Guys who understand the half court grind.

Do you think that Sergio too wont have a learning curve? Will everyone be on his case cause of defense next year?

I wonder if the same people calling for Jacks head will be yelling for Sergio's after every stronger PG posts him up and scores at will on him?


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

i am appalled at the negativity in this thread. it should be obvious to anyone who's watched the last 4 games that when he's playing with confidence jack's court vision, ball-handling, and quickness are no worse than avg for a starting PG, and critically he IS improving and is nowhere near his potential ceiling. to put it in perspective:


season JJ / deron

FG% .458 .459
3P .360 .320
FT .879 .779
ASSIST 5.4 9.4
STEALS 1.2 1.0
TO 2.36 3.05

except for assists per game which IMO in this case is much more a matter of offensive system than court vision and talent, for the season despite his confidence problems jack has put up similar or superior numbers to deron (and IMO is a similar if not better defender). if deron were here with lower assist/game because he's feeding zach all year and roy is handling the ball a lot, would everyone by talking about HIM being a trade throw-in or referring to him as no better than a "first-tier backup?". give me a break.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Wow, another player that plays better without Zach.....I'm shocked


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I think the key to Jack is the guy has to not hesitate, and shoot. Don't try to be Sergio, because he isn't. When he is on the floor he is at his best attacking the rim recklessly, and taking shots without hesitation. That is his way of opening things up for everybody else. He reminds me a lot of Bobby Jackson in that way, who turned out to have some pretty good years in the league.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

c_note said:


> He PS
> A young Chauncey Billups? LOL


Why are you laughing?


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

What we do know is Jack is a legit 6'3 with solid muscle mass and plays tough defense especially in the half court which we know is what wins championships. We know that PG's don't post him up and shoot over him like they would a Damon, Telfair, Jason Williams type of PG. We know that Jack can score, and I for one don't think he's been in the league long enough for anyone to give up on him. Jack seems to me to be the player that once he's comfortable will be a major piece to a good team in this league. He's still a kid, and this once again is his first healthy year.

Please note:

Chauncy was a virtual unknown for most of his career, but with the right team and coach he turned into one of the biggest free agent PG's in the NBA this offseason. That's a fact! 

You think Phil Jackson wouldn't love to get his hands on Jack over Smush Parker? There's your real laugher. I'm in LA and the Clippers are trying to give up Maggette and Mobley at a shot at Billups. Think that Jack wouldn't catch their eye for less? Think Jack couldn't help the Cavs or Twolves? Portland has had a history of passing on good to great talent until it comes back to burn um for 30 points a game. 

If Sergio pans out great the team is even better, but you don't trade away a PG with great size who can put up 30 points in a game for a kid who hasn't started a month yet in the NBA and plays no defense. 

Here's a thought, let's say Sergio put up 15 assists a night and scores 18 points to boot but his defense is so tragic the other PG's like Nash,Chauncy,Kidd,Parker,AI do the same, without defensive stops, the other teams win because right now they have better players at other positions plus all these teams have one thing we don't, a true Allstar. Sergio makes a couple espn highlight reels with passes but just like Zach is wont get us over the hump. 

Great PG's are good not great on both sides of the ball. Sergio is years from being a defensive force. Much of what you don't like about Jack will show up on the other end of the court with Sergio. Probably why you should keep them both for now and see who fixes their weakness first!


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

crowTrobot said:


> i am appalled at the negativity in this thread. it should be obvious to anyone who's watched the last 4 games that when he's playing with confidence jack's court vision, ball-handling, and quickness are no worse than avg for a starting PG, and critically he IS improving and is nowhere near his potential ceiling. to put it in perspective:
> 
> 
> season JJ / deron
> ...


I like JJ, and I think there will be lots of crow eaten by those that say he'll never be more than a scrub, but you have to tell the whole story if you're going to compare stats:

season JJ / deron

FG% .458 .459
3P .360 .320
FT .879 .779
ASSIST 5.4 9.4
STEALS 1.2 1.0
TO 2.36 3.05*
PTS 12.1 16.5
RBS 2.6 3.3
EFF 13.7 19.1*

Go Blazers


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Masbee said:


> Why are you laughing?


Pretty stupid question.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

c_note said:


> Pretty stupid question.


Incredibly stupid answer.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> Why are you laughing?


He then goes on to say that Freddie Jones is better than Jack in all aspects of the game except shooting. If there were any justice in the world, c note would have his rights to "LOL" at anyone officially revoked for that statement.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

YardApe said:


> ...
> 
> Probably why you should keep them both for now and see who fixes their weakness first!


Exactly! It blows my mind to see how many people here both ready to anoint Sergio as a future star and write off Jack as a 6th man at best. Sergio has shown real promise, but he has a very long way to go, and meanwhile Jack is playing some good competent basketball in just his second year in the league.

Both guys have promise, neither come with guarantees. Unless a pretty good offer comes along, I'd like to see us hedge our bet by keeping both and seeing who pans out best.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Exactly! It blows my mind to see how many people here both ready to anoint Sergio as a future star and write off Jack as a 6th man at best. Sergio has shown real promise, but he has a very long way to go, and meanwhile Jack is playing some good competent basketball in just his second year in the league.
> 
> Both guys have promise, neither come with guarantees. Unless a pretty good offer comes along, I'd like to see us hedge our bet by keeping both and seeing who pans out best.


Is Ben Gordon being "written off" as a 6th man? What about Terry Porter and Ainge when they filled the 3rd guard role for some great Blazer teams?

Saying that starting PG isn't Jack's best role does NOT mean writing him off as worthless.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

BealzeeBob said:


> I like JJ, and I think there will be lots of crow eaten by those that say he'll never be more than a scrub, but you have to tell the whole story if you're going to compare stats:
> 
> season JJ / deron
> 
> ...


i didn't include pts/game because i think they are irrelevant. deron is a larger part of the offense, plays more, and takes way more shots/minute than jack - but jack is a significantly more efficient scorer when he does shoot: better from 3P, averages way more FT attempts per shot, and shoots a much higher FT % than deron. 

RBS/48 is 3.7 vs. 4.2. small edge to deron, but not significant. neither is going to make the all-star team based on rebounding : )

EFF/48 is 19.3 vs. 24.7, which is essentially accounted for almost entirely by the difference in assists.

my point was, other than assists/game, their numbers are very similar - and deron would certainly have less assists/game playing in nate's walk-it-up system with roy and zach. they are at worst similar defenders, and i personally think jack is a little better. on the whole they are *very* similar players.

so why is deron almost an all-star but jack gets continually poo-poo'd here? i don't get it.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Is Ben Gordon being "written off" as a 6th man? What about Terry Porter and Ainge when they filled the 3rd guard role for some great Blazer teams?
> 
> Saying that starting PG isn't Jack's best role does NOT mean writing him off as worthless.


If you think that JJ's ceiling precludes him from being a good starting PG, then you don't know Jack. It would be writing off his unrealized value too soon if we view him as only capable of being a 6th man and assess his trade value thusly. However, if we could get a starting caliber guard like Porter or Gordon to play a backup position for us, that would be great, but that's hardly the same thing as saying that's their best role or that that is all they can do.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

You guys are totally right. Jarrett Jack is obviously the next Chauncey Billups. Blazers are gonna have multiple championships in the future. Plus he can dunk better, pass better, play better defense AND hes more athletic than Freddie Jones. JARRETT JACK FOR MVP!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

c_note said:


> You guys are totally right. Jarrett Jack is obviously the next Chauncey Billups. Blazers are gonna have multiple championships in the future. Plus he can dunk better, pass better, play better defense AND hes more athletic than Freddie Jones. JARRETT JACK FOR MVP!!!!!!!!!!!!


Nice try, but you don't have to be an MVP to be better than Fred Jones. The fact that you think Freddie is better than Jack is just screwy, and that makes the fact that you were "LOL"ing at someone else for being a homer about Jack very ironic.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

YardApe said:


> What we do know is Jack is a legit 6'3 with solid muscle mass and plays tough defense especially in the half court which we know is what wins championships. We know that PG's don't post him up and shoot over him like they would a Damon, Telfair, Jason Williams type of PG. We know that Jack can score, and I for one don't think he's been in the league long enough for anyone to give up on him. Jack seems to me to be the player that once he's comfortable will be a major piece to a good team in this league. He's still a kid, and this once again is his first healthy year.
> 
> Please note:
> 
> ...


Offensively Billups hasn’t changed that much. Billups was the third pick in the draft, and people knew he could play but he was classified worse than Jack. He was considered a SG in a PGs body and he really did have less floor general skills than Jack does right now but then so did BJ, JP, and SK on the Bulls and those guys have rings. Billups was then and still is more of a scorer and a shooter than Jack and his passing and floor general skills have only been refined through experience in the same way any player getting PT would improve. The reasons why Billups is successful is because he plays on a team that shares the ball so much they don’t need a constant floor general and he did improve as a defender. Jack doesn’t know how to play without the ball nearly as well as Billups because Billups was a natural scorer in college while Jack was a natural PG. Billups would compliment Randolph and Roy not shrivel up because he isn’t getting the ball.

The reasons why Petino and so many basketball minds are wary of PGs like Billups is because its hard to find teams like the Pistons and the champ Bulls that pass the ball as a team. Most teams have a bunch of guys that watch and rebound while the PG or a post player controls the ball. That was the Clippers until they lost Cassell and Livingston. Now the Clips are playing like the Pistons so they are actually better without their PGs. 

My main problem with Nates coaching is the lack of movement by the guards. Webster should be moving around like Hamilton or Reggie Miller. So I cant lay all the blame on Jack for not being more a complementary scorer. Some of that is on the coach but that isn’t Jacks skill set like it was for Billups.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

c_note said:


> You guys are totally right. Jarrett Jack is obviously the next Chauncey Billups. Blazers are gonna have multiple championships in the future. Plus he can dunk better, pass better, play better defense AND hes more athletic than Freddie Jones. JARRETT JACK FOR MVP!!!!!!!!!!!!


Fact is, Jarrett Jack was among the best point guards in the ACC for years - and would routinely outperform, or play to a standstill guys like Chris Paul. He didn't all of a sudden start sucking when he made it to the NBA. As others have said, he had a bum ankle last year, and this year is the first time he's had a chance to actually run an NBA team for an extended period. Consider this, as well: the same guy who decided to jettison Steve Blake and Sebastian Telfair and anoint JJ with the undisputed starting PG role, is the same guy who orchestrated arguably the best draft in Blazers' history. Is Kevin Pritchard a genius at judging Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge, but an idiot when it comes to point guards? I don't think so. 

Finally, it's been said that point guard is by far the hardest position to play in the NBA. I'll give JJ a bit more time before deciding what his future might hold. I'm inclined to think that he could well be a Bobby Jackson, or Michael Cooper type of sixth man. But he might be better than that. The only way to find out is to play him. Since Sergio isn't ready to take over the team, the Blazers aren't going anywhere soon anyway, where's the harm?


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Public Defender said:


> Fact is, Jarrett Jack was among the best point guards in the ACC for years - and would routinely outperform, or play to a standstill guys like Chris Paul. He didn't all of a sudden start sucking when he made it to the NBA. As others have said, he had a bum ankle last year, and this year is the first time he's had a chance to actually run an NBA team for an extended period. Consider this, as well: the same guy who decided to jettison Steve Blake and Sebastian Telfair and anoint JJ with the undisputed starting PG role, is the same guy who orchestrated arguably the best draft in Blazers' history. Is Kevin Pritchard a genius at judging Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge, but an idiot when it comes to point guards? I don't think so.
> 
> Finally, it's been said that point guard is by far the hardest position to play in the NBA. I'll give JJ a bit more time before deciding what his future might hold. I'm inclined to think that he could well be a Bobby Jackson, or Michael Cooper type of sixth man. But he might be better than that. The only way to find out is to play him. Since Sergio isn't ready to take over the team, the Blazers aren't going anywhere soon anyway, where's the harm?


You think choosing between Jarrett Jack and Telfair or Blake was a hard decision? And a bum ankle has nothing to do with his inability to run fast breaks (which is downright pathetic, even for college standards), or his repeated tendency to dribble down the court, go past everyone and throw the ball out of bounds. He does this multiple times every single game. Shouldn't a point guard's strongest attributes be court vision and passing ability?

He is NOT a point guard. And I'll repeat: Freddie Jones is better at everything except shooting. Try watching him play if you don't believe me. And if you can't see it, maybe you shouldn't be commenting and evaluating talent anyways.

IMO Freddie should be starting over Jack. The only reasons he isn't is because Jack has been running the team all year, part of last year, Freddie is shooting poorly due to a hand injury and he has only been with the team a couple months. He has superior basketball intellect (and otherwise I would wager).


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

c_note said:


> And a bum ankle has nothing to do with his inability to run fast breaks (which is downright pathetic, even for college standards)


we don't fast break because nate doesn't want us to. if we tried regularly everyone on the team would be better at it.



> or his repeated tendency to dribble down the court, go past everyone and throw the ball out of bounds. He does this multiple times every single game.


that's just stupid. he's only had a couple games recently where he did that and it was a confidence problem where he was hesitating, not a court vision problem. for the season jack is among the NBA leaders for starting PG's in LEAST amount of TO per game. 



> And if you can't see it, maybe you shouldn't be commenting and evaluating talent anyways.


if you want anyone else's opinion you'll give it to them?


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

c_note said:


> You think choosing between Jarrett Jack and Telfair or Blake was a hard decision?


What do you even mean by that? Are you saying then that it goes without saying that Jarrett Jack is unquestionably superior to Steve Blake - the starting point guard on the playoff-bound Denver Nuggets? If so, then I'm not sure how that squares with Jack being unable to start for the Blazers. 



> And a bum ankle has nothing to do with his inability to run fast breaks (which is downright pathetic, even for college standards), or his repeated tendency to dribble down the court, go past everyone and throw the ball out of bounds. He does this multiple times every single game. Shouldn't a point guard's strongest attributes be court vision and passing ability?


To say he runs "down the court, go past everyone and thrown the ball out of bounds... multiple times every single game" is ludicrous. There are games where he only has 1-2 turnovers, and considering he occasionally gets stripped, travels, steps out of bounds, or performs a charge, to get those, your conclusion is just not true. And it's helping erode your already questionable credibility. 



> He is NOT a point guard. And I'll repeat: Freddie Jones is better at everything except shooting. Try watching him play if you don't believe me. And if you can't see it, maybe you shouldn't be commenting and evaluating talent anyways.


You can say he's not a PG all you want, doesn't make it true. He is an inexperienced point guard, but so have lots of players been when they first enter the league. 



> IMO Freddie should be starting over Jack. The only reasons he isn't is because Jack has been running the team all year, part of last year, Freddie is shooting poorly due to a hand injury and he has only been with the team a couple months. He has superior basketball intellect (and otherwise I would wager).


I haven't seen enough of Fred Jones to say for sure how he should figure into the Blazers' rotation. But I see Martell Webster and Brandon Roy as the two guys standing in the way of his playing time, not Jack.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

No. I've seen Jack attempt to run a "fast break" too many times this year. I've also seen how pathetically he runs a half court set. 

Watch him on the pick and roll sometime. Both men will stay out, while the pick man rolls to the hoop and Jack NEVER gets him the ball. He's not starting material.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

dudleysghost said:


> As for the general thread topic, I definitely think Jack is better than many here think. He can do a little bit of everything. His production is clearly inconsistent, but I give him a pass because I think he's still learning when to be assertive and when to defer, and he's still pretty young. He's a second year point guard, and that's a tough thing to be in the NBA. Can anyone think of a major point guard in the NBA who didn't get substantially better as he got older (not counting injuries)? I can't, off the top of my head. I think Jack is doing a good job, and he will continue to improve.


I think Stockton was good from the get go (did not have the time to check to verify it) - but he is the exception to the rule.

Personally, I think JJ is going to be a first tier PG in this leauge within 2-3 years and the Blazers would be foolish to trade him for anything other than a real great offer.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

andalusian said:


> I think Stockton was good from the get go (did not have the time to check to verify it) - but he is the exception to the rule.


Nope. He wasn't that good his rookie season. He wasn't "Stockton" great until his 4th season, age 25.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stockjo01.html

Magic Johnson was outstanding his rookie year as an unusual point guard. Yet, he went from great as a rookie, to sensational the next year. Magic is routinely cited as the rare exception to the rule that point guards take a while to develop in the NBA, and even he got better after his rookie campaign.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsma02.html


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Masbee said:


> Nope. He wasn't that good his rookie season. He wasn't "Stockton" great until his 4th season, age 25.
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stockjo01.html
> 
> Magic Johnson was outstanding his rookie year as an unusual point guard. Yet, he went from great as a rookie, to sensational the next year. Magic is routinely cited as the rare exception to the rule that point guards take a while to develop in the NBA, and even he got better after his rookie campaign.
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsma02.html


This is an off-base comparison anyways. Stockton wasn't even a starter until his 3rd season, when he started producing. AND he had Karl Malone. 'Nuff said.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Public Defender said:


> What do you even mean by that? Are you saying then that it goes without saying that Jarrett Jack is unquestionably superior to Steve Blake - the starting point guard on the playoff-bound Denver Nuggets? If so, then I'm not sure how that squares with Jack being unable to start for the Blazers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Steve Blake is much older and isn't going to get any better. For the future of the team, at that point, Jack over Blake was a no-brainer (although right now Blake is better than Jack).

And don't try to tell me that what I see and observe every game isn't true. He does it AT LEAST once a game, usually with no teammates around him, just out of control and not thinking whatsoever.

I don't understand why so many are delusional supporters of Jack. He has a pretty low ceiling for improvement. How can you not recognize this? I seriously do not understand what the hell you see in him.
Do you think Jarrett Jack is gonna lead this team to a championship, or even past the 1st round?

I agree about Jones, PG isn't his natural position. But, JARRETT JACK? Any mediocre guard in the league should be starting over him.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

c_note said:


> Steve Blake is much older and isn't going to get any better. For the future of the team, at that point, Jack over Blake was a no-brainer (although right now Blake is better than Jack).
> 
> And don't try to tell me that what I see and observe every game isn't true. He does it AT LEAST once a game, usually with no teammates around him, just out of control and not thinking whatsoever.
> 
> ...


Jack is pretty average overall right now, but there are very few point guards as young as Jack who are even average.

Low ceiling for improvement? Not so sure about that. Seems to me he's playing much, much better since Zach Randolph left the lineup. I doubt that's a fluke. Maybe his skills are being clouded by the style of play of some of his teammates?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

c_note said:


> This is an off-base comparison anyways. Stockton wasn't even a starter until his 3rd season, when he started producing. AND he had Karl Malone. 'Nuff said.


I fail to understand your point(s).

If you know what PER means, or can carefully read stats, you will see that Stockton was not a starting caliber player his rookie year. It had nothing to do with not getting the minutes. He wasn't good enough to deserve more minutes.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

I will list only young point guards, as the Blazers aren't and shouldn't care about older vets, who won't be good when the young players on this team peak.

Young Point Guards and Combo Guards:
Age -Name - PER this season

25 - Gilbert Arenas - 24.2
21 - Chris Paul - 22.2
24 - Tony Parker - 21.9
24 - Leandro Barbosa - 18.6
24 - T.J. Ford - 18.2
22 - Brandon Roy - 18.2
22 - Deron Williams - 17.8
24 - Mo Williams - 16.4
24 - Deven Harris - 15.8
*23 - Jarrett Jack - 14.9*
20 - Sergio Rodriguez - 14.6
23 - Delonte West - 13.9
25 - Jameer Nelson - 13.9
23 - Randy Foye - 13.8
22 - Raymond Felton - 13.7
20 - Jordan Farmar - 10.8
21 - Sebastian Telfair - 9.9

Jarrett is #10 on this list of young pgs. #9 if you don't count Roy. He has already been a very solid pick for where he was drafted. If he improves, as has happened many times with other point guards careers' he could turn into a great draft steal.

Could we have a better young pg talent on our team? Sure. But look at the list. Who do you want that is guaranteed to be better now and in the future, and how much will it cost to get them? We want a guy who is 22-25. Not too old to match the other guys. Not too young they are too far behind the learning curve.

I don't see any young guy that 1) we could get and 2) is so much more exciting than Jack at this point. We could have just simply draft Chris Paul when we had the chance. But we didn't.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Masbee said:


> I will list only young point guards, as the Blazers aren't and shouldn't care about older vets, who won't be good when the young players on this team peak.
> 
> Young Point Guards and Combo Guards:
> Age -Name - PER this season
> ...



Wow man, all that list tells me is there is ONE starter with a lower PER than Jack. The rest are bench scrubs. Jack isn't going to get much better. He's got no above average athleticism, (unlike most on that list), no reliable jump shot... etc etc theres no point in arguing with someone who likes to pull useless stats out of his *** to try and prove some non-existant point.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

> Wow man, all that list tells me is there is ONE starter with a lower PER than Jack. The rest are bench scrubs. Jack isn't going to get much better. He's got no above average athleticism, (unlike most on that list), no reliable jump shot... etc etc theres no point in arguing with someone who likes to pull useless stats out of his *** to try and prove some non-existant point.


I am not a huge Jack fan. But to call someone starting their 1st season at PG(Arguably the hardest position to learn in the NBA) a peaked player is absurd. The chances that Jack doesnt improve over what he is right now is about as likley as Sergio not improving anymore. For a young, 1st year starter Jack has been pretty good. He isnt in Deron Williams or Chris Paul territory(Both players were picked about 20 spots ahead of Jack in the same draft), but he is far from a scrub. You complain that he is not that athletic and has no reliable jumper, but neither does Sergio. Also, I dont understand how you can call anyone on this list other than Sebastion Telfair or maby Jordan Farmar(rookie) a scrub.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I am not a huge Jack fan. But to call someone starting their 1st season at PG(Arguably the hardest position to learn in the NBA) a peaked player is absurd. The chances that Jack doesnt improve over what he is right now is about as likley as Sergio not improving anymore. For a young, 1st year starter Jack has been pretty good. He isnt in Deron Williams or Chris Paul territory(Both players were picked about 20 spots ahead of Jack in the same draft), but he is far from a scrub. You complain that he is not that athletic and has no reliable jumper, but neither does Sergio. Also, I dont understand how you can call anyone on this list other than Sebastion Telfair or maby Jordan Farmar(rookie) a scrub.


I'm not calling him a scrub. He's average, and I don't see him ever stepping it up to the next level.
Just watch this off-season. We'll see what Blazers management does about it.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

c_note said:


> Steve Blake is much older and isn't going to get any better..


Well, I do not agree with that assessment. First off, PGs mature late, because of the complicated nature of their position.

And finally, the Rockets owe Mr. Blake et al of Denver and big "Thank You": Steve Blake had a terrific game tonight as Denver beat Utah in Salt Lake for their 7th in a row. Besides the great shooting, he also had some clutch assists late in the 4th to help seal the victory:

35 mins, 5-8 FGs, 4-5 3ptrs, 2-2 FTs, 16 pts, 4 Dimes, 2 Stls, 0 TOs

I think he just might get better.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

southnc said:


> Well, I do not agree with that assessment. First off, PGs mature late, because of the complicated nature of their position.
> 
> And finally, the Rockets owe Mr. Blake et al of Denver and big "Thank You": Steve Blake had a terrific game tonight as Denver beat Utah in Salt Lake for their 7th in a row. Besides the great shooting, he also had some clutch assists late in the 4th to help seal the victory:
> 
> ...


....that what hes capable of. He did that all year with the Blazers. He's obviously better than Jack, but he's not gonna get much better than those numbers...

BTW
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore;_ylt=AvO.e1ucFvWcLJT53CUlzaS8vLYF?gid=2007041122

cooincidence Jack has bad game and Jones does great? Maybe.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

c_note said:


> Steve Blake is much older and isn't going to get any better. For the future of the team, at that point, Jack over Blake was a no-brainer (although right now Blake is better than Jack).


I see your point there. Blake is better, but in terms of building for the future, Jack makes sense.



> And don't try to tell me that what I see and observe every game isn't true. He does it AT LEAST once a game, usually with no teammates around him, just out of control and not thinking whatsoever.


I have seen Jarrett Jack throw a ball out of bounds on a fast break, lots of times. I don't recall too many instances of him getting a rebound or an outlet pass, dribbling end-to-end and then culminating it all with a pointless toss of the ball to a paying customer "with no teammates around him." Botching a fastbreak under pressure? Sure, he does it, I'd even say frequently. So do Steve Nash or Jason Kidd, for that matter. Does Jack do it more, and blow breaks that more experienced guards would convert? Sure. But neither Kidd nor Nash were much better than Jack in their first full year. 

As for every single game, I repeat that's absolutely false. Here are five games this year in which Jack didn't commit a single turnover. 

Nov. 18 at New Jersey (38 minutes, 0 TO)
Nov. 22 vs. NJ at home (38 minutes, 0 TO)
Nov. 28 vs. Indiana (41 minutes, 0 TO)
Dec. 15 vs. LA Clippers (36 minutes, 0 TO)
Jan. 27 at Memphis (42 minutes, 0 TO)

I also doubt in Jack's 16 games where he committed only one turnover that in every case, it was the one-man-fast-break-becomes-a-turnover variety that you're describing.



> I don't understand why so many are delusional supporters of Jack. He has a pretty low ceiling for improvement. How can you not recognize this? I seriously do not understand what the hell you see in him.
> Do you think Jarrett Jack is gonna lead this team to a championship, or even past the 1st round?


I assume that since you're directing this thread at me that you're calling me delusional. I'm not a huge Jack supporter, though I think he shows promise. I don't see one year being enough to give up on him. Neither do Nate McMillan and Kevin Pritchard, who I dare say, know more about basketball than you or I do. I'm giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, based on the strong play I've observed (inconsistent, though it's been), and based on his solid play at the collegiate level in the NCAA's toughest conference. Do I think he could lead a team into the playoffs? Considering he took a Georgia Tech team with limited talent to the Final Four, I wouldn't rule it out. 



> I agree about Jones, PG isn't his natural position. But, JARRETT JACK? Any mediocre guard in the league should be starting over him.


I wouldn't want to put any over-the-hill, mediocre PG in over Jack. But if there were another PG, who for some reason showed a great deal more promise than Jack, but was faltering out of the gate, I'd consider putting that player in ahead of Jack (which is why I don't have a problem with giving Sergio more playing time). Or, if the Blazers acquired a truly primetime PG, like Billups, Nash, Parker, perhaps even a Mike Bibby or Jason Terry, I'd certainly agree with starting that player instead. However, considering where the Blazers are - as a rebuilding team - I don't see a problem with giving Jack a little more room to operate and a little support, to see how he develops.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

southnc said:


> I think [Blake] just might get better.


Doubtful.

He's already 27 years old. Nobody really improves much after that age. His play this year is mostly due to the fact that he has 2 of the 10 best scorers in the league on his team. He's okay, but he's as good as he'll ever be right now.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Fork said:


> Doubtful.
> 
> He's already 27 years old. Nobody really improves much after that age.


Well... maybe in basketball. I've improved since then, I swear. 

Or at least I'm more experienced. Which counts for something.

barfo


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Public Defender said:


> I have seen Jarrett Jack throw a ball out of bounds on a fast break, lots of times. I don't recall too many instances of him getting a rebound or an outlet pass, dribbling end-to-end and then culminating it all with a pointless toss of the ball to a paying customer "with no teammates around him." Botching a fastbreak under pressure? Sure, he does it, I'd even say frequently. So do Steve Nash or Jason Kidd, for that matter. Does Jack do it more, and blow breaks that more experienced guards would convert? Sure. But neither Kidd nor Nash were much better than Jack in their first full year.
> 
> As for every single game, I repeat that's absolutely false. Here are five games this year in which Jack didn't commit a single turnover.
> 
> ...


If there's one thing I hate more than anything, its turnovers. Sure, Jack doesn't necessarily turn it over more frequently than his NBA counterparts, but I'd say a good portion of his are just completely idiotic passes/fumbles. God it pisses me off watching him play. This is probably the main reason I dislike him. 
He does some things well. He has an uncanny ability to dribble to the right side and pass the ball to Zach. This would certainly limit his turnover risk. For a point guard, he just makes some of the most MORONIC plays. Shouldn't have to put up with it at the NBA level.

btw turnovers from guys like Sergio, Nash, etc occurr when they are trying to make something happen, unlike Jack's physical blunders.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Fork said:


> Doubtful.
> 
> He's already 27 years old. Nobody really improves much after that age.


Well, I wouldn't go that far. Players with great athletic ability (which Blake doesn't have) always get better with age, mostly in terms of court awareness, passing..etc. Guys like Garnett, Webber, Shaq, all come to mind. All of the greats, pretty much.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

Trying to compare sergio and jack is pointless because jack has played major minutes as a starter almost every game this season and sergio has played bull**** minutes,when sergio has had the same oppurtunity as jarrett then you draw comparisons 

FRANK:
PG is the one position in the NBA that players get better with age,as long as the physical tools are still there then most pg`s become much more savvy as to where to deliver the ball the older they get.

I do however believe that the great pg`s are born with a certain amount of unteachables that seperate them from the rest and its only a matter of getting the player the minutes/right coaching to show them.This in my opinion is the difference between sergio and jack.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

c_note said:


> Wow man, all that list tells me is there is ONE starter with a lower PER than Jack. The rest are bench scrubs. Jack isn't going to get much better. He's got no above average athleticism, (unlike most on that list), no reliable jump shot... etc etc theres no point in arguing with someone who likes to pull useless stats out of his *** to try and prove some non-existant point.


Are the problems with this post due to blind ignorance or a reading comprehension problem? One wonders.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

www.starbury.com said:


> Trying to compare sergio and jack is pointless because jack has played major minutes as a starter almost every game this season and sergio has played bull**** minutes,when sergio has had the same oppurtunity as jarrett then you draw comparisons
> 
> FRANK:
> PG is the one position in the NBA that players get better with age,as long as the physical tools are still there then most pg`s become much more savvy as to where to deliver the ball the older they get.
> ...



Finally someone who actually understands basketball.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

There are two sides to basketball, one offensive and one defensive. Jack is not bad on offense right now, and his size and skill make him pretty darn good on defense. Sergio has nice court vision but no defense, add him to Randolph and Roy will be alone out there to make stops.

Do you feel comfortable looking to Sergio for defensive stops and to be able to body other PG's on defense to keep them from simply taking him to the hoop at will? You don't mention that often on rip rants on Jack.

If I'm a coach looking at Sergio and Randolph I've got to like my chances on offense, infact :yay: would be more like it!


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

c_note said:


> I'm not calling him a scrub.


http://www.basketballforum.com/portland-trail-blazers/336133-update-sergio-vs-jack.html

Actually, you have. (Post #28)

Go Blazers


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

BealzeeBob said:


> http://www.basketballforum.com/portland-trail-blazers/336133-update-sergio-vs-jack.html
> 
> Actually, you have. (Post #28)
> 
> Go Blazers


If you read what I quoted, my comment would make sense. Obviously I don't believe he's a true scrub.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

They just need to trade Jack, get a veteran who can guide the team/teach Sergio a few things until Sergio's defense is ready, like I've said in the past.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Right now, I'd take Jack as my starter over Sergio. He's only in his 2nd year in the NBA (first as full-time starter), and I think he will get better. Even now (this season) - while he may not be flashy - he doesn't throw games away (unless I missed something by not tuning in to last night's game vs. the Rockets). Funny, but that's the definition of a "good" guarterback in the NFL.

But give Sergio some quality minutes (not the bits & pieces he's gotten this season), and Sergio could be a legit starter, too. I think it's too early to say one has a higher ceiling than the other at this point, though. People tend to feel flashy players like Sergio have higher ceilings than less flashy players. A lot of people thought the Blazers should have kept Bassy over either Jack or Blake. Turns out, Bassy may have already hit his ceiling.

To answer Gramps' question: I've ALWAYS thought Jack was/is/will be better than a lot of people here seem to think. Im willing to give him more time to show it.

PBF


----------

