# Disappointed by Jack?



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

I haven't been able to watch the games, so I'm only going on stats, but I have to say I was hoping for more from Jarrett Jack. In particular, his assists/48 were only 6.6 (sadly, still enough for best on the team) while his TOs/48 were a whopping 5.5 (only Sergio managed more with a ridiculous 9.9). Now, he was never a prototypical PG, but I was hoping for better than that. I guess we can hope for a time when he and Roy are just "guards" who share the distributing duties, but then we'd need better outside shooting from Jack - he only took 9 3-pointers in 8 preseason games. He did have an overall fg% of 50%, though, so that's something. Anyone have any comments? In general, did it seem as if he and Roy play well together, or are they sort of trying to be the same guy on the court?

(Incidentally, I'm not calling for Telfair back, because I never liked his style of play, and besides, we got Roy out of him. His assists/turnovers/48 are, while better, hardly stunning: 7.1/4.1.)

(And if you find yourself typing "it's only preseason, dude!" Or "8 games is too small a sample!" then do me a favor and cancel the post. I know that. I'm asking for comments by people who've watched him play. Does he look better than last year, for example?)


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Not disappointed with his play because it's what I expected.

He has always been a good backup SG to me although a bit short and not a very good perimeter defender.

He has always been a poor substitute at PG.

Still very disappointed that we gave away 2 much better PG's and now we don't actually even have a true PG good enough to start in this league.

I prefer a full-court press and flashy-pass running game, and detest half-court snoozeball so I'm unlikely to be happy about much this year with all the gimps and lazy guys we picked up over the summer.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Not disappointed, because it was the pre-season. That, and he's a second year PG. Coming back from surgery. Playing with a ton of new players.

Too early to say he's a bust or that Portland made the wrong moves in getting rid of Telfair and Blake. Give him time to develop, and he'll be fine.

People are quick to jump to conclusions, but what do you think people said about Chauncy Billups after his couple of seasons in the league? Or Steve Nash? Give Jarrett time!


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Not disappointed with his play because it's what I expected......Still very disappointed that we gave away 2 much better PG's and now we don't actually even have a true PG good enough to start in this league.......


:whoknows: 

Jack has displayed the most skill at playing the PG position from all of last year and this year. He was more consistant than Telfair, and on par with Blake for most of last year. I don't agree with your above statements. 

Give him time this season and see if you change your mind.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Not disappointed with his play because it's what I expected.
> 
> He has always been a good backup SG to me although a bit short and not a very good perimeter defender.
> 
> He has always been a poor substitute at PG.


Jarrett Jack played now and then as SG for the Blazers last year, but he was more often a backup PG. In college, Jack was pretty much a PG all the time. He was one of the better defending PGs in the NCAA his last couple years, and can execute under pressure (including knocking down free throws, as he did against Utah last week). 

Jack has been decent, and I don't blame him for the high turnover number so much. The team in general is turning it over, because they're still figuring out the players, and one another. When the ball sails out of bounds because Travis Outlaw or Ime Udoka isn't in the right position, Jack gets the turnover because he threw it. In time, that should change, and Jack's TO #'s should come down.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I'm disappointed. He has not played as well as I had hoped. However, he is still much better than Telfair or Blake.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

At least Jack has not been a brick machine like Damon and Telfair, he's been shooting near 50 and has displayed good offensive skills inside and out. Also remember that those numbers were in only an average of 28 mpg, and included a fat zero.

Hopefully having a SG with PG skills will help the team pick up in the assist department.


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

The team as a whole has been crap in assists and high in turnovers, so no, Jack hasn't disapointed me at all, just about what I expected, and better than expectations in the FG % dept.

The only thing I DON'T like about Jack is he doesn't try to make spontaneous things happen enough, instead he seems to be too concious about what Nate is wanting from him, and I think that keeps him out of a good flow, always having to second guess his instincts.

The offense as a whole is pretty messed up, it's the entire team who's struggling with passes, catching balls, being where they should be. 

Jack is a pretty solid PG. He's not flashy, but he gets the job done about as good as I could expect from any non wiley old veteran players on this team. If we had say, a player like Pippen when he ran the point, yeah I could see that extra experience running the team better, but honestly, the only thing I think he could do right now with the way the entire team plays, is try to score the ball more himself.

All in all, the PG position in the pre-season has been the least of my worries. Roy has been good but his outside jumper seriously blows from what I saw, and then there's the whole crazyness at the SF spot, and our centers are really really just not doing a whole lot of anything except turning the ball over. THANK GOD Zach isn't sucking it up right now like some predicted.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

as I think he'll probably have a Derek Fisher/Greg Anthony kind of career of quiet competence, I'm not that disappointed. he's right in line with my expectations. 

he may yet greatly exceed those somewhat modest expectations, and if he does nobody will be happier than me. but there's a reason he wasn't a lottery pick. given where we drafted him, even a Fisher/Anthony-level player is pretty nice.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Lack of assists and a high number of turnovers are to be expected in preseason with a team as inexperienced as the Blazers. You have to consider that these stats are directly influenced by the abilities of your teammates. A PG can deliver a perfect pass to a fumble-fingered teammate (Magloire, for example) and get dinged with a TO as well as lose out on what should have been a certain scoring opportunity. Those numbers should improve dramatically as the season goes along and teammates get familiar with each other.

And as far as Jack's TOs being a "whopping 5.5" per 48 min., consider that Chris Paul's TOs per 48 during preseason were at 5.94...and we all know what a crappy PG he is.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Not disappointed at all. He's playing pretty much exactly like I would expect. I agree with Mook about where I see his career ending up most likely (which is very respectable), though I would certainly be happy to be wrong.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> Not disappointed with his play because it's what I expected.
> 
> He has always been a good backup SG to me although a bit short and not a very good perimeter defender.
> 
> ...


Jack is an excellent perimeter defender, in fact the best on the roster. If you research his career at GT, you will see an excellent PG who can rebound and score when necessary.

Jack will end up around 12/4/5 this season and will shoot around 45% FG and 85% FT.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

In my opinion Jack probably would have been a top 5 pick if he'd stayed in school and came out in this draft.He was vastly superior to any PG prospect in the 2006 draft based on what he did at Ga Tech.The Blazers got him with something like the 28th pick didn't they?That's pretty much a steal and only possible because there were three really good PG's available last season.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

MARIS61 said:


> He has always been a good backup SG to me although a bit short and not a very good perimeter defender.


Maris,

I know you're a troll, but sometimes you crack me up. First, you put down Jack as "a bit short and not a very good perimeter defender". And then, in the very same post...



MARIS61 said:


> Still very disappointed that we gave away 2 much better PG's and now we don't actually even have a true PG good enough to start in this league.


You lament losing two smaller, much weaker defenders. Unless, of course you actually consider the bag of bones Blake or the midget Telfair to be surperior defenders. No, not even you could be that delusional.

BNM


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Diable said:


> In my opinion Jack probably would have been a top 5 pick if he'd stayed in school and came out in this draft.He was vastly superior to any PG prospect in the 2006 draft based on what he did at Ga Tech.The Blazers got him with something like the 28th pick didn't they?That's pretty much a steal and only possible because there were three really good PG's available last season.


22nd pick. I agree though. He was a great pick because that year was a very strong PG draft, any other year he would've likely gone higher.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

mook said:


> as I think he'll probably have a Derek Fisher/Greg Anthony kind of career of quiet competence, I'm not that disappointed. he's right in line with my expectations.


A good and fair analogy. Being a workman-like point is often better for a team than one that wants the spotlight-ala, Marbury, Telfair.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I am not disappointed or impressed yet. 

What I like so far is Jack seems to be a pretty good defender and he meshes well with the other players. He went to the coach to fight for Ime to make the team and has been a cheerleader when he is not on the floor. He does not over dribble(just the opposite, he might under dribble)

What I don't like are all his turnovers. He also seems like at any given time he is either actively working on being a distributor or a scorer on offense, but does not seem to combine those two. So you might see him go 12 minutes and get 4 assists or go 12 minutes and get 8 points, but you don't often see him go 12 minutes and get 2 assists and 4 points(This is an exaggeration I am using to highlight my observation). This will come in time, it just goes to show that he is actively trying to learn and he is working on his game.

I think the turnovers will decrease significantly by December for the following reasons:
1) He will have more experience as the Starting PG
2) Other blazers will have more experience with Jack as PG and they will learn where they need to be.
3) Many of the turnovers during the preseason were due to officiating stressing certain new and old rules, as Jack learns to pay attention to these rules and as the referees stop being super-strict, these turnovers will lessen.
4) Nate will work with Jack to correct some of his decision-making mistakes like leaving both feet without knowing what to do with the ball.
5) Nate will begin limiting minutes more in accordance with who performs on the court, so Maglorie and other players who have hands of stone will see their minutes reduced and Jack won't have to interact with them. 
6) Everyone will learn the offense a little more and practice will reduce out of position players. 
7) Jack will be paired with Roy for longer stints, so the two will share the PG duties to a degree. I don't have stats to prove this claim, but it seemed like Jack was a more solid distributor when Roy was on the court.

In a month or so, I see Jack cutting his TO’s down to about 2.8 per game. Still not very good, but a lot better then we see currently. I do think that Jack will become a pretty good PG in this league, we just need to remember that he is only in his second year and is at the most difficult position to learn.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> A good and fair analogy. Being a workman-like point is often better for a team than one that wants the spotlight-ala, Marbury, Telfair.


true enough. you probably have to go all the way back to the Isiah Thomas Detroit Pistons to find a team where the PG was clearly the best player on the team. you could maybe argue Billups too. 

Derek Fisher, Jason Williams, the young Tony Parker, Kenny Smith, Ron Harper. History shows a championship team needs a decent PG, but does it need a PG superstar? not really. 

if Jack can reduce his turnovers, keep hitting his shots at a high percent, and keep building on his defense, he could be our starting PG for the next 10 years. or he could wind up being a great combo guard off the bench, if a superstar PG emerges in Roy, Rodriguez or elsewhere.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Nate McVillain said:


> In a month or so, I see Jack cutting his TO’s down to about 2.8 per game. Still not very good, but a lot better then we see currently. I do think that Jack will become a pretty good PG in this league, we just need to remember that he is only in his second year and is at the most difficult position to learn.


good points. of course, in a month or so more teams will have had time to work on their defense, and pick apart Jack's weaknesses. teams will especially work on applying full-court pressure, where Jack still struggles. 

as Jack improves, so will the opponents.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

mook said:


> good points. of course, in a month or so more teams will have had time to work on their defense, and pick apart Jack's weaknesses. teams will especially work on applying full-court pressure, where Jack still struggles.
> 
> as Jack improves, so will the opponents.


Very true, but Nate will slow down the offense and have Roy and Jack bring the ball up in tandem. Applying full-court pressure is much less effective against two ball handlers then one.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Nate McVillain said:


> I am not disappointed or impressed yet.
> 
> What I like so far is Jack seems to be a pretty good defender and he meshes well with the other players. He went to the coach to fight for Ime to make the team and has been a cheerleader when he is not on the floor. He does not over dribble(just the opposite, he might under dribble)
> 
> ...


What he said...although even though it's pre-season and we should take everything with a grain of salt, I'm still cautious about my attitude towards Jack. I want him to succeed...and not just by becoming an average PG. Time will tell, though.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Not disappointed:

1. I haven't "seen" Jack in person this pre-season, but from the words of Brian Wheeler it _seems_ like he's a lot more mobile this season than last, and is shooting better this season than last as well.

2. The whole team committed way too many turnovers during pre-season. It's not just Jack. I attribute this to a lot of minutes being given to lesser-skilled players (that's just something teams do during pre-season), a large number of young players (and Jack is one of 'em...), and strange rotations (again, something that happens during pre-season). And I expect that number to come down during the regular season as fewer minutes are given to lesser-skilled players, our young players adjust to the speed and long arms of their opponents, and the rotation tightens up.

3. Judging from what I saw from Jack in college and with us last season, he is a smart player. What I mean is, he hasn't hit any kind of plateau. I am confident he will continue to develop and improve to the point where there will be no need for anyone to ask whether or not we are disappointed in him.

Not wowed yet, but certainly not disappointed at this point.

PBF


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Why are you guys even questioning Jarret Jack right now? And comparing him to DEREK FISCHER?? Come on guys! Derek shoots under 40% for his career. He'll be much better than Fischer.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Nate McVillain said:


> I am not disappointed or impressed yet.
> 
> What I like so far is Jack seems to be a pretty good defender and he meshes well with the other players. He went to the coach to fight for Ime to make the team and has been a cheerleader when he is not on the floor. He does not over dribble(just the opposite, he might under dribble)
> 
> ...


Very good assessment.

Although I still believe in the long run that the Blazers made a mistake by dealing Blake away for Magloire (how's that working out, everybody?), Jack is MORE than capable of being the starting PG. I don't happen to believe that preseason is an accurate barometer of what's to come for this team or that player though.

Remember -- Jack was partly hobbled last season by a poor ankle and played quite well. I still am in the belief that now that he's fully mobile he'll be twice the player he was last season.


----------



## Redbeard (Sep 11, 2005)

Jack is playing really well for this teams style. He has been consistant in doing what Nate wants and has had a stable demeanor. This helps tremendously for the other players. They know what to expect from him at the point and that was something Telfair couldn't really do. His FG% shows that although he isn't taking a lot of shots, he is making good decisions in his shot selection.

I think he will look a lot better when the rest of the team comes around. Downfall to being a PG.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

soonerterp said:


> Although I still believe in the long run that the Blazers made a mistake by dealing Blake away for Magloire (how's that working out, everybody?)


Perfectly.

If you had read my post on the day of the trade you would know that.

It is essentially irrelevant how well or poorly Jamaal plays. The Blazers have the opportunity to make the trade a plus for them. Even the worse case (let him walk to take the savings) is something positive.

I am confused how you comment on the results of the trade during pre-season play, yet state you think it was a mistake in the long run? Don't we have to wait to see?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Masbee said:


> Perfectly.



You consider the trade of Blake for JM to be working out perfectly?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> You consider the trade of Blake for JM to be working out perfectly?


Yep.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Masbee said:


> Yep.



I guess to me perfectly would have been that JM played better than he did during the pre-season, made other teams interested right away, competed for the starting joband showed what made him an all star, and that Dickau showed he can fill Blake's shoes. That would be more perfectest.

But I like your standards.


----------



## Nate Dogg (Oct 20, 2006)

Well, he set up the plays against the Sonics (11/1/06). Numbers aren't too impressive but other guys picked it up for him.
44 min 3-8 shootin 0-3 for 3pts 7-8 on free throws, 6 def reb, 6 rebounds, 6 ast, 3 steals, 13pts.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Nate Dogg said:


> Well, he set up the plays against the Sonics (11/1/06). Numbers aren't too impressive but other guys picked it up for him.
> 44 min 3-8 shootin 0-3 for 3pts 7-8 on free throws, 6 def reb, 6 rebounds, 6 ast, 3 steals, 13pts.


I dunno ... 13/6/6 is a pretty good line for a second year PG coming off ankle surgery and playing with a new group of guys. 3 TOs wasn't great, but I was impressed tonight.


----------



## hammer (Oct 29, 2005)

I watched the entire game, and Jack played great. The Blazers have themselves a guy whom I believe will be a top 10 PG in the not-so-distant future.

And oh by the way, this thread sucks. I think that most people in this particular forum know their hoops, though.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

What worries me is that jack had to play 44 minutes. I don't think he will be as effective if he has to play that much every night. Also is more likely to get injured playing that much. And I think the team is best when Roy can focus on being a shooting guard and not a point guard. So i think it's a real problem that we don't have an effective backup point guard.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Ukrainefan said:


> What worries me is that jack had to play 44 minutes. I don't think he will be as effective if he has to play that much every night. Also is more likely to get injured playing that much. And I think the team is best when Roy can focus on being a shooting guard and not a point guard. So i think it's a real problem that we don't have an effective backup point guard.


And not to be a downer, but the team won't always be in it down the stretch every night. Let's say they're down by 15th in the 4th at GS, McMillan won't keep Jack in there to keep his minutes up. It's only one game. Nate knows what he's doing.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

I'm not criticizing Nate at all. he's doing what he has to do with the pieces management has provided him.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

Ukrainefan said:


> And I think the team is best when Roy can focus on being a shooting guard and not a point guard. So i think it's a real problem that we don't have an effective backup point guard.


Wasn't Roy playing pg when he went on his run?


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

I could be wrong but as i remember it Jack was still in at that time, maybe Roy was doing most of the ballhandling though. Maybe he will be more effective with the ball in his hands but I don't think that means he has to also bring it up court.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I think Roy could be like Pippen was for us. The ball handler down the stretch of games. He seems to be much more effective when he has the ball in his hands at the top of the key and can either penetrate and dish, penetrate and score, pick n' roll with Zach or Pryzbilla or cross-over his man and either take it to the hole or dish off to a shooter. I think when you have a player like him, with his size, who can handle the ball well it gives a team much more options offensively.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

To me, the best comparison for Jack is a prime Eric Snow. Primarily, a very good defender at the position, rounded into a smart, steady ball-handler and passer and capable of hitting a mid-range jumper when open.

If Jack fulfills that, maybe makes a few All-Defense second-teams...I'd be perfectly happy.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> To me, the best comparison for Jack is a prime Eric Snow. Primarily, a very good defender at the position, rounded into a smart, steady ball-handler and passer and capable of hitting a mid-range jumper when open.


that's the best comparison I've read so far for him. nice.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> To me, the best comparison for Jack is a prime Eric Snow. Primarily, a very good defender at the position, rounded into a smart, steady ball-handler and passer and capable of hitting a mid-range jumper when open.
> 
> If Jack fulfills that, maybe makes a few All-Defense second-teams...I'd be perfectly happy.


Jack is already at the prime Eric Snow level and his college career shows he can be far more than that.

Somewhere between Eric Snow (as his best) and Chauncey Billups is where Jack will find himself in 3-5 years.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> Jack is already at the prime Eric Snow level and his college career shows he can be far more than that.


No, he isn't. Eric Snow made the All-Defense team and was a perennial contender for that honour. Jack is absolutely not an elite defender in the NBA yet. Snow also was very efficient--a very good passer who didn't turn the ball over much. So far, Jack has had trouble with his assist-to-turnover rate.

Jack has all the tools to reach Snow's prime level (and potentially even surpass it), but he's definitely not there now.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Compare 6'3" Jack's one-game stats as a second year starter at the age of 23...

13 points, 6 boards, 6 assists 3 steals, 3 turnovers in 44 minutes


With this 6.3" player's 2nd year stats (and first year starting) at the age of 23:

13.1 points, 4 boards, 8.9 assists, 2 steals, and 3.1 turbovers in 34 minutes a game.

Or another very solid 6'3" Point guard, starting at age 23:

12 points, 3.4 boards, 6.8 assists, 1.3 steals, 2.7 turnovers in 36 minutes.



If Jack can keep his numbers up, he'll be a better defender and rebounder, but poorer passer. I could live with that. Of course, this is only one game. 

The guys listed above are Terry Porter and Kirk Hinrich, respectively. Wouldn't we all be happy to have their 23 year-old versions as Blazers?

iWatas


----------



## hammer (Oct 29, 2005)

How about that Jarrett Jack? GOD DAMN that boy is nice.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Jarrett Jack right now, is as good as Eric Snow in his prime. C'mon you guys can think of better comparisons than that.

He reminds me of a young Kevin Johnson.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

I'm disappointed with the defense we've seen from the PG position. So far Luke Ridnour and Baron Davis have had huge nights against the Blazers. While part of that is certainly team defense, and another part is the new even-stricter handchecking calls, I think Jack at least deserves some of the blame. On offense though, I was expecting about 13ppg 6apg on ~44% shooting from Jack, so after 2 games I'm not disappointed at all on that end.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

not disappointed with jack. I liked it when we drafted him and expected him to turn into a solid player. So far, he's showing me just that. He'll be a starter for most of his career, but will never be mentioned as a possible all-star. That's fine with me. Average on offense, above average on defense. That's good enough to be my starting pg.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Actually, in the two games so far he's raised my opinion of his game/potencial. He's moving much better then last year and I generally like the decisions he's been making. Yes Luke and Baron had good nights against him, but it seemed that was more about them being on and making shots then him getting used. With the extra mobility he's shown this season combined with his size/length, I like his potencial on the defensive end... I love that when he gets switched over to a 2G that he has a chance. 

Another thing in his benefit is being teamed with Brandon Roy. They both willingly share the ball and the guard responsibilities depending on what the situation calls for. The versatility of having two do it all guards with good size, talent, and a team approach gives me a lot of hope for the future... that I see Aldridge as the same sort of _jack of all trades_ but from the frontcourt makes those hopes all the brighter. They'll need time to learn the tricks of the trade, and the team will need someone to emerge at the 3 for them to turn the corner, but my optimism for the future is running high. 

STOMP


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> Compare 6'3" Jack's stats as a second year starter at the age of 23...
> 
> With this 6.3" player's 2nd year stats (and first year starting) at the age of 23:
> 
> ...


Jack's averages after 4 games are now:

12 points, 3 boards, 6.3 assists, 2.3steals and 2.3 turnovers in 36 minutes. And with %s of 50, 12, and 83.

Very, very similar to Hinrich's numbers as a 23 year-old starter, so far at least. 

iWatas


----------



## jarrett_jack (Nov 8, 2006)

you people are ridiculous... stop living of this assits turnover crap. hes a beast


----------



## jarrett_jack (Nov 8, 2006)

o i forgot the only bad part is he shoots too many threes unless thats what he is told to do by nate mcmillan or somthing


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

jarrett_jack said:


> you people are ridiculous... stop living of this assits turnover crap. hes a beast


You people... that's always a great way to start a sentence.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

im impressed


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

I think he's playing great! If he's averaging the same amount of steals as he is turnovers........come on, that's great! Bassy's #'s- 12.7 points, 2.3 rebs., 2.7 assists, 2 to's and 0 steals. I'm happy with Jack! (PS- Jack's averaging 0 guns!)


----------



## abwowang (Mar 7, 2006)

i'm impressed with his numbers this year. he's doing real well. 

a good contributer, you guys should be glad to have him!


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I think he is doing well, but some of these comparisons to Porter and Kirk are premature. The Eric Snow comparison is very good. Jack is probably going to be better than Snow later on, but right now he is definatley not as good as Snow. His jumper is currently better, but defensivley he has farther to go than many people say. 

Watching the games, it is very clear to me that Jack has real trouble dealing with faster point guards. People see a well built Jarrett Jack and assume that he is already a well above average defender. This is not true. I would say that he is an average defender with the potential to use his strength and IQ to become a good defender. He doesnt have Rajon Rondo like physical and athletic gifts to be a great defender, and must work on footwork and staying in front of his man.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I still like the Snow (in his prime) comparison, but Jack isn't far away from being the better player. 

Snow never shot better than 45%. Jack is shooting 51% this season. (That's "Tony Parker" good.)

Snow averaged his career high of 12 ppg in his 9th season. Jack is averaging 12 ppg in his second. 

could be Jack will cool off some, but if anything he's going to get better as the season progresses. if he can get his turnovers under control, he can really vault himself to the top of the second tier of high quality young PG's, right below Chris Paul and Tony Parker.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> Compare 6'3" Jack's stats as a second year starter at the age of 23...
> 
> With this 6.3" player's 2nd year stats (and first year starting) at the age of 23:
> 
> ...


Jack's numbers are now:

12.6 points, 2.5 boards, 5.9 assists 1.5 steals, 2.4 turnovers in 35 minutes

Jack's assists have dropped below Hinrich's, as have his rebounds. Still, not shabby.

iWatas


----------

