# An interesting take on Luke Jackson



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

> Great shooter. But he is a poor mans Wally. And that doesnt look to good to me. he wont be as good as Aleksander Pavlovic who was taken 18ish last year


This is a quote from rlucas in the thread he started on how Jackson wowed the Bulls in his workout. I found this to be quite interesting and hope that rlucas can expand on why he thinks Pavlovic is a better player than Jackson. I myself really like Jackson and think he will be a really good player in the league. I like what I saw from Pavlovic the couple times I saw him with Utah this past season but obviously do not know as much about him as I do Jackson. Rlucas, thoughts?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> 
> 
> This is a quote from rlucas in the thread he started on how Jackson wowed the Bulls in his workout. I found this to be quite interesting and hope that rlucas can expand on why he thinks Pavlovic is a better player than Jackson. I myself really like Jackson and think he will be a really good player in the league. I like what I saw from Pavlovic the couple times I saw him with Utah this past season but obviously do not know as much about him as I do Jackson. Rlucas, thoughts?


This guy cant move his feet for a lick. He wont be able to guard anyone at the NBA level. He has a great J, but so does Kyle Korver. He is crafty at getting his shot off. But he is neither a good passer, finisher at the rim or break. Sure, he brings a nice jump shot, but Pavlovic does too, and the guy is an athlete who happens to be bigger and stronger and a far more complete player inspite being a year or 2 younger. I also think Jackson will find it much harder to get that jump shot off in the pros. Teams will spend alot of time hiding him on D. Thanks, but no thanks


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Thanks rlucas. So what do you think the Bulls were wowed by in his Jacksons' workout? Do you think he just shot lights out? Or do you think Luke proved that he was better at some of the things you mentioned than was previously thought about him? Like maybe he proved he can move his feet better than most thought? Sato was in that workout as well. You know they matched those two up against one another. Jackson must have did well in that matchup. Thanks for the detail on Pavlovics' game. He sounds like a gem. Replaces Harpring in Utah at some point I imagine.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> Thanks rlucas. So what do you think the Bulls were wowed by in his Jacksons' workout? Do you think he just shot lights out? Or do you think Luke proved that he was better at some of the things you mentioned than was previously thought about him? Like maybe he proved he can move his feet better than most thought? Sato was in that workout as well. You know they matched those two up against one another. Jackson must have did well in that matchup. Thanks for the detail on Pavlovics' game. He sounds like a gem. Replaces Harpring in Utah at some point I imagine.


i dont know what Jackson did to make the Bulls like him. But i am 100% sure that they do. My source on this is totally reliable. As a pro Jackson comment, rumor has it that he has dusted Igoudala in some predraft workouts at Hoops recently. Again, I have no comment on who, what, why, or how he is doing it, but he must have done soemthing right. Iggy is falling. and Jackson is rising. thats for sure. however, I still would pass on Jackson. The kid really just doesnt do it for me. He isnt that great an offensive player to ignore what will be some major defensive defiences at the NBA level.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I will say one thing about Jackson. He probably would be best suited for a run and gun type team. A Dallas or a Sacramento. I am glad to hear the Bulls like him. I think he will have a nice NBA career. Way too good a shooter not to.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> i dont know what Jackson did to make the Bulls like him. But i am 100% sure that they do. My source on this is totally reliable. As a pro Jackson comment, rumor has it that he has dusted Igoudala in some predraft workouts at Hoops recently. Again, I have no comment on who, what, why, or how he is doing it, but he must have done soemthing right. Iggy is falling. and Jackson is rising. thats for sure. however, I still would pass on Jackson. The kid really just doesnt do it for me. He isnt that great an offensive player to ignore what will be some major defensive defiences at the NBA level.


Would you have a more open mind about Jackson if he did better than expected on the lateral quickness drill at the camps, or have you seen enough.

By the way, I really enjoyed my visit to ASU, and I think I'm going to change plans if I get in there. I'm waiting for the reply.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> This guy cant move his feet for a lick. He wont be able to guard anyone at the NBA level. He has a great J, but so does Kyle Korver. He is crafty at getting his shot off. But he is neither a good passer, finisher at the rim or break. Sure, he brings a nice jump shot, but Pavlovic does too, and the guy is an athlete who happens to be bigger and stronger and a far more complete player inspite being a year or 2 younger. I also think Jackson will find it much harder to get that jump shot off in the pros. Teams will spend alot of time hiding him on D. Thanks, but no thanks


I'd have to disagree!

I've seen quite a bit of Jackson this season and I've seen much more of Pavlovic last year (with caparnaka and vranes playing euroleage with maccabi).

Big mislead on Pavlovic - Maybe because of his origin - HE IS NOT A GOOD SHOOTER at this point atleast and never was.He is a good player , good athlete and has good size - but still , anyway you look at it he is not a shooter and never (yet) considered one.
Caparnaka used to shoot much better that him although being much bigger , Pavlovic was always more of a slasher active guy.

And I also disagree about Luke , he is not a bad athlete , he's actually quite decent IMO.He shoots way better than Pavlo (way) who is also not considered a good defensive player (again - yet , he's got the tools) . I agree Luke will have problems with opposing SG's (assuming he'll play 2/3) but so does Jamal and so many other sg's playing the league.Luke is also a very GOOD passer(4.5 a game while floor leaders as Duhon or Jack only avrege 6 in college) while Pavlo was considered selfish in eurobb.
Jackson is a better athlete than Krover.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd have to disagree!
> ...


Jackson would have a hard time guarding my dead granma. The guy can shoot. But he is going to be very hard to hide on D. 

As for Pavlovic, i 100% disagree. The guy is a very good shooter. And in games this year, when he played extensive minutes, shot very well. however, he didnt get a ton of time and his number reflec that. but he is every bit the shooter Jackson is, and bigger and more athletic in the process


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

> Jackson would have a hard time guarding my dead granma.


Ok that a little too excessive and unnecessary. I do not even know your grandma and I would have too much respect for her to say that. But back to basketball Luke is not a great defender by any means but he ain't awful.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

If Iggy is indeed falling like rlucas has said, it is time to get the Boston or Utah GM on the phone! Paul Pierce fell too and I think Iggy is going to be a much better player.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok that a little too excessive and unnecessary. I do not even know your grandma and I would have too much respect for her to say that. But back to basketball Luke is not a great defender by any means but he ain't awful.


In the era of team defense, individual defensive prowess is overrated. 

I mean, in a league full of players, how many are as good as Artest? 3 or 4? If you draft Jackson, especially in the 2nd round, you do so for a need to fill... his being a 15mpg shooter of the bench.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Jackson would have a hard time guarding my dead granma. The guy can shoot. But he is going to be very hard to hide on D.
> 
> As for Pavlovic, i 100% disagree. The guy is a very good shooter. And in games this year, when he played extensive minutes, shot very well. however, he didnt get a ton of time and his number reflec that. but he is every bit the shooter Jackson is, and bigger and more athletic in the process


His coach at Bordnachost did not consider him a shooter.He even said something is the likes after a game.Maybe u can say he has nice mechanics but never in his short carrer did he have good % from long range . And at the moment Jazz r hiding Pavlo's defense just fine (much better than we hide JC's defense).
Saying Pavlo is as good a shooter as Jackson is like saying Antoine walker shoots like Peja - Yes , he shoots as much , but a lot less goes in.

seriously - how did Pavlo start being considered a shooter , while in euroBB it was considered his biggest problem.most talks before games were give Pavlo a step back , that way he might decide to shoot over u instead of slashing where he usually scored or get fouled.The fact that he is from Serbia&montenegro does not make him automatically a good shooter (though in most cases it is true).
So what , his 27% 3p shooting made him a shooter for the first time of his carrer??
In europe it used to be as long as Pavlo don't slash - he don't score , and suddenly in nba he's a totally new kinda player???

Don't get me wrong - Pavlo is a very good player , and the fact they used to discuss ways to stop him (give him a step , and stay close to Caparnaka) only shows it , but don't make him what he clearly is not - shooter!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> In the era of team defense, individual defensive prowess is overrated.
> ...


I agree. Second round would be best for him. And at 15mpg, he could be effective. But we are so bad that we certainly cant be aiming for a 15mpg off the bench player with our first round pick. Especially one who is very one dimensional. Quick, name me one other aspect that Jackson does well outside of shooting the ball?


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> I agree. Second round would be best for him. And at 15mpg, he could be effective. But we are so bad that we certainly cant be aiming for a 15mpg off the bench player with our first round pick. Especially one who is very one dimensional. Quick, name me one other aspect that Jackson does well outside of shooting the ball?


But I thought that was the draft status of the 4 players they brought in? All 2nd rounders, no?


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> I agree. Second round would be best for him. And at 15mpg, he could be effective. But we are so bad that we certainly cant be aiming for a 15mpg off the bench player with our first round pick. Especially one who is very one dimensional. Quick, name me one other aspect that Jackson does well outside of shooting the ball?


Ballhandling , Passing.

Name one other good thing Allan Houston or Reggie Miller or Wally do well except shoot?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> Ballhandling , Passing.
> ...


Ballhandling? passing? You have got to be kidding me

Allan Houston and Reggie Miller also can score in lots of ways when their shot isnt going down. This kid wont. I mentioned him as a poor mans Wally, heck even Sczerbiak can get his own shot in times and he can finish on the break. Look at HKFs scouting report on the kid. Michigan made him look very ordinary in the NIT semifinals, just think what a Bruce Bowen or Michael Pietrus would do to him (oh thats right, Pietrus is no better then Dupree  )


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> If Iggy is indeed falling like rlucas has said, it is time to get the Boston or Utah GM on the phone! Paul Pierce fell too and I think Iggy is going to be a much better player.


Wow , u like Iggy that much!!

I think he's the best athlete in the draft (and might become the best athlete in the league if it were measurable) , and we can pick him if we get 5th or 6th.I just don't think he will fall to the 14-16th area so Boston and Utah would be to late imo.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Id say Jackson is a very good all around player .To say hes just a shooter is not accurate at all becauses hes a good passer and a solid rebounder cosnidering hes a sf .This guy is a SCORER he can do it on the move off the dribble or on the break .He also played in a up tempo system something the Bulls are trying to add .

Hes a very skilled basketball player and thats what we should be trying to add to our depth .


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> But I thought that was the draft status of the 4 players they brought in? All 2nd rounders, no?


nah, i heard that they liked Jackson enough that they might want to trade down in round 1 to get him.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Ballhandling? passing? You have got to be kidding me
> ...


Bowen and Piertus would do it to many guys in the league(imagine what they'd do to Pavlo who STILL didn't develope a shot).

And yes , I'm not saying he's a star in the nba but he can pass and he can handle , and fyi most of his points r not spotups , they r in every wat writen in the book - slashing , stop and J , 3p , fastbreaks ,taking his man of the dribble , dunks , screen and roles....


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Ballhandling? passing? You have got to be kidding me
> ...


Youre talking like were bringing him and are gonna isolate him one on one to make plays or something .He would bea good fit for sysytem Skiles is trying to put in .Hes very good off the screen and can make a pass to the open man as well as put the ball on the floor.Hes not a super slasher but a very solid system player that could be used to spread the floor .

Pietrus :laugh: 

Did they even mention Bowens name once during the spurs /Lakers series ?Hes done imo . :laugh:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> Id say Jackson is a very good all around player .To say hes just a shooter is not accurate at all becauses hes a good passer and a solid rebounder cosnidering hes a sf .This guy is a SCORER he can do it on the move off the dribble or on the break .He also played in a up tempo system something the Bulls are trying to add .
> 
> Hes a very skilled basketball player and thats what we should be trying to add to our depth .


Shooting comes at a premium in the NBA. If you were to trade with Utah and come up with 14, 16 and 21 for our picks 2, 31 and 38 I would take him at 21ish because of this one thing. but I dont see him as a guy who can create his own shot in the pros at all. But in a drive and pitch game, he certainly would help. And he does play with some energy. But he is a one trick pony


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Youre talking like were bringing him and are gonna isolate him one on one to make plays or something .He would bea good fit for sysytem Skiles is trying to put in .Hes very good off the screen and can make a pass to the open man as well as put the ball on the floor.Hes not a super slasher but a very solid system player that could be used to spread the floor .
> ...


lets just put it this way, this kid isnt striking fear into the hearts of the artests, the pietrus's, the Bowens, the butlers, and other good defensive players at the 2/3 spot in the NBA. Again, he is going to need help to get open. He wont be able to shoot off the dribble in the pro ranks. Again, see the NIT game against Michigan were very ordinary players really bothered him.

also, does anyone really know what Skiles is putting in for an offensive system?


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Someone is drinking some serious haterade. Luke ain't no one trick pony. A taller Brent Barry IMO. And that ain't a bad player at all. Not the athlete Brent is but a very similiar player.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> Someone is drinking some serious haterade. Luke ain't no one trick pony. A taller Brent Barry IMO. And that ain't a bad player at all.


haterade. read HKFs post. Or read some other things about him. The point is, there is more kool aid being drank here cause we have another 4 year college player being taken. This guy hasnt done any of the things that you guys claim he can do, yet, he is going to be able to do that on the pro level? Give me a break. Good passer? Really next thing someone will say is that he is a stopper.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I think you don't realize how good Brent Barry was at OSU. He is not a taller Brent Barry. He does not have the ball-handling skills of a Barry or the ability to be a combo guard. The only comparison b/w the two is that they are both white and played for Oregon Universities. Games are way too dissimilar. 

At SG he is going to be not as quick (let's be honest, this is the position where quickness separates the greats from the good in the NBA at the most) and at SF he is going to be undersized defending. He is more athletic than Korver, but he is not a better shooter. I still think he is a bench player.

Why are you spending mid-first round picks on a guy you know will be a bench player? You should still be looking for guys who you hope can become capable starters. 

Would you take Jackson over Deng?


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

HKF I would certainly not take Jackson over Deng. I love Deng and his game and other than maybe Okafor he is the guy I want most for the Bulls. Having said that I think a pick somewhere between 17-22 is a nice fit for Jackson. Brent Barry probably is not the best comparision but bottomline is I think Jackson is a very nice player. Will he be a starter in the NBA? I don't know depends on the situation but it is possible that with someone he could start.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> I think you don't realize how good Brent Barry was at OSU. He is not a taller Brent Barry. He does not have the ball-handling skills of a Barry or the ability to be a combo guard. The only comparison b/w the two is that they are both white and played for Oregon Universities. Games are way too dissimilar.
> 
> At SG he is going to be not as quick (let's be honest, this is the position where quickness separates the greats from the good in the NBA at the most) and at SF he is going to be undersized defending. He is more athletic than Korver, but he is not a better shooter. I still think he is a bench player.
> ...



Jackson is basically Glen Rice, at the end of his career. And your post about the Michigan game said it all. This kid might be good value in the second round. But with so many good players who have serious upsides, why spend it on a kid like this? It makes me wonder


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Sees here the problem, when looking at Jackson. I looked at a guy put up a lot of numbers this year. Some would say he was carrying the team, which is true, and yet the team still made the NIT. This was a preseason NCAA team and they re-gressed. 

Which means he had a bunch of great games but still couldn't put them over the hump. How many times do we have to see someone who is billed a great shooter come into the league and be a one-dimensional bench player? Do I really need to name names of great shooters who ended up becoming okay players? 

Casey Jacobsen
Wesley Person
Voshon Lenard
Pat Garrity
Jason Kapono
Eddie Johnson
Fred Hoiberg


Add Jackson to that list because that is what he is destined to become. This is the NBA, I think people are losing sight of the big picture. He's a nice glue guy, maybe a very good role player off the bench, but he isn't that good that people need to fawn over him. Was he really better than Casey Jacobsen, who willed his team to wins with huge scoring games even when Borchardt was always hurt? 

I am not convinced and I will have to wait till he plays to think otherwise.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Question for rlucas and Fooey:

Would you rather have:
1) Luol Deng
2) Iggy and Jackson


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Sees here the problem, when looking at Jackson. I looked at a guy put up a lot of numbers this year. Some would say he was carrying the team, which is true, and yet the team still made the NIT. This was a preseason NCAA team and they re-gressed.
> 
> Which means he had a bunch of great games but still couldn't put them over the hump. How many times do we have to see someone who is billed a great shooter come into the league and be a one-dimensional bench player? Do I really need to name names of great shooters who ended up becoming okay players?
> ...


watch out mate. your walking on thin ice. you cant criticize a 4 year college player on this board without being labeled a hater. Interestingly, this sounds like you called him a one trick pony so expect the backlash


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Question for rlucas and Fooey:
> 
> Would you rather have:
> ...


No. 2, but I still think they can get Jackson at 32 (if the big guys don't pull out).


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Question for rlucas and Fooey:
> 
> Would you rather have:
> ...


can i say Josh Smith? Or Dorrel Wright?

Truly, Id take Igoudala and Jackson over Deng. Igoudala could be Richard Jefferson all over again, and look how good that guy is? Jackson could be a nice 7th or 8th guy who can spread the floor for you. Deng is a good player, but might be a man without a position


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I would take many sg/sf's ahead of him in this draft(Deng,Iggy,Smith,Dorrel...).

Maybe he is a bench player - but certainly not one dimensional - he's far from being only a shooter.I wouldn't trade down in order to get him.I agree he'll have problems on defense.

rlucas - as good as HKF knows his stuff in college , I read his posts and learn - but keep my own opinion - and I've seen Jackson play about 5 full games this season - It's not a lot , but I certainly know what I think of the guy without the need to be sent to other posts.He can handle , and he can Pass (4.5 in college is alot) - seen it with my own eyes and not read it on other posts - believe me i'm not making it up.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Also note, that the guys I listed were not labeled shooters exclusively (they did other things, as did Jackson in college), it's just when you get to the league, it seems that things like dribbling and passing get much harder to do unless you are highly skilled at it. You start to realize that the stuff in college you did, doesn't work so well anymore and now you need to stay in the league by doing what you do best. 

I just think people are going to see his all-around ability not look so good on the next level. This is not Mike Dunleavy Jr. we are talking about here.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> I would take many sg/sf's ahead of him in this draft(Deng,Iggy,Smith,Dorrel...).
> 
> Maybe he is a bench player - but certainly not one dimensional - he's far from being only a shooter.I wouldn't trade down in order to get him.I agree he'll have problems on defense.
> ...


And am I entitled to disagree with you? I dont think youll find too many people who would call Jackson a good passer or a potential point forward. And you probably were watching him play inferior competition. This wasnt a particularly good year for the PAC10 outside of Stanford. Its my opinion, and others, that he is one dimensional. Your entitled to yours that he isnt.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

You can all bet that if we miss out on a top 2 pick(Okafor/Deng) Paxson will entertain many trade scenarios about trading down.

Remember the New Jersey Houston trade???

The Nets selected Eddie Griffin and traded him to Houston for Richard Jefferson,Brian Scalabrine and Brandon Armstrong.


I'd expect Pax will do a similar deal taking into consideration the redundancy of big men entering the draft.

Andriskevicious,Ramos,Arujo,Podkolzine,Biedrins.

9 days left!


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Usually guys who become Point forward-types are guards who end up growing. 

Mike Dunleavy Jr. (went from a good shooting guard with handles, to a 6'9 WF/WG with handles) 
Lamar Odom (went from a 6'2 PG to 6'10 WF in one year)
Scottie Pippen (went from 6'1 to 6'7)

These guys are usually guards first and then they hit growth spurts.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>unBULLievable</b>!
> You can all bet that if we miss out on a top 2 pick(Okafor/Deng) Paxson will entertain many trade scenarios about trading down.
> 
> Remember the New Jersey Houston trade???
> ...


Just an FYI, Brian Scalabrine was taken in the 2nd round. Jason Collins was used as the other 1st round pick with Armstrong and Jefferson. 

That was good draft for the Nets. Which might be one of the reasons some teams are not very eager to give up 3 chances to get a player who may one day be great.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>unBULLievable</b>!
> You can all bet that if we miss out on a top 2 pick(Okafor/Deng) Paxson will entertain many trade scenarios about trading down.
> 
> Remember the New Jersey Houston trade???
> ...


whoa mate. 

If Arenas or I said this, people would bash us incessantly. 

Trading down still makes the most sense. It wont happen, but it makes the most sense. this team needs a bench. In fact, the bench and one of our starters might be gone to FA. So we need to replenish. Trading with Utah makes sense since they are rumored to be in love with Biedrins. Getting Dorrell Wright (sorry HKF), Igoudala (who is falling and might be available at 16) and petro would be a great draft day for this team. 2 guys who can come off the bench for a year and a potential day one starter (Iggy) at the 3 who really does look like jefferson to me


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> And am I entitled to disagree with you? I dont think youll find too many people who would call Jackson a good passer or a potential point forward. And you probably were watching him play inferior competition. This wasnt a particularly good year for the PAC10 outside of Stanford. Its my opinion, and others, that he is one dimensional. Your entitled to yours that he isnt.


Indeed u r.
I'm not saying he's a point fwd and I know he did everything in a bad team in a bad conf'.I also agree with HKF it becomes harder to dribble or pass in the higher level.But still - he's not only a shooter , he scored throughout the season in many different ways , what I'm saying I might agree he's not a star in the league and probably be a good bench player or averege starter (his Best case is higher) - but imo he's not one dimensional.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> Indeed u r.
> I'm not saying he's a point fwd and I know he did everything in a bad team in a bad conf'.I also agree with HKF it becomes harder to dribble or pass in the higher level.But still - he's not only a shooter , he scored throughout the season in many different ways , what I'm saying I might agree he's not a star in the league and probably be a good bench player or averege starter (his Best case is higher) - but imo he's not one dimensional.


thats your opinion, i have got mine. the difference is, when I state mine, it gets labeled as "hate". If i hated him, why would i say he did so well or that he beat up on Igoudala?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> haterade. read HKFs post. Or read some other things about him. The point is, there is more kool aid being drank here cause we have another 4 year college player being taken. This guy hasnt done any of the things that you guys claim he can do, yet, he is going to be able to do that on the pro level? Give me a break. Good passer? Really next thing someone will say is that he is a stopper.


http://www.nbadraftreport.com/jacksonscoutingreport.htm


> Strengths:
> Has great perimeter skills and can play down low… He is very versatile and because of that, can play the shooting guard, small forward, and power forward with his post skills and shooting skills… Also has a very quick first step… Does a great job of getting to the basket… Great foul shooter… Can create his shot very well… A pure shooter and can hit from three-point range and mid-range consistently… A great inside-outside player… Has a nose for the ball, knows how to box out bigger and taller players… Can handle the ball like a guard… Has a very complete offensive game, almost a flawless player offensively…
> 
> Weaknesses:
> On offense, the only thing he needs to work on is his one-on-one moves… Needs to improve his feet on defense… Often gets beat to the basket… Will have a hard time playing anything but small forward in the NBA because he doesn’t have the speed of guards and the size or strength of big men


http://nbadraft.net/profiles/lukejackson.asp


> Strengths: Luke is a very good all around player. He is an excellent shooter all the way out to NBA range and has a good mid-range game as well. He also passes the ball very efficiently. He is a difficult match-up because of his height (6'7) and his guard skills. Needs very little space to get his jumper off and has a pretty quick release. Generally plays under control even in the transition game. He has a small forwards body but could play some 2 at the next level. Has a deceptive first step and does a great job of getting into the lane and challenging the defense. He is a very unselfish player with a solid all-around game. He's ot afraid to mix it up and hit the boards.
> 
> Weaknesses: Not the greatest defender on earth and will definitely struggle to guard perimeter players at the next level. His lateral foot speed is not a strength. Not the most athletic SF either but he is adequate in that area. Lacks great size at the SF position, and is not a tremendous rebounder, but decent. He also wont blow you away with his athleticism, but has decent quickness and leaping ability.


http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=2707



> Scouting Report: Causes match-up problems against nearly any opponent he faces ... Best described as a "ball-handler" ... Doesn't play the game at a torrid pace like a slasher would, he likes to settle into his dribble and then make his move based on what his mental dissection of the defense is ... Can really hit the hole once he sees one, possesses a good first step despite his size ... Often will use his height to manipulate opponents, given the fact that he can pull-up into his jump shot at any point with little room due to the vertical spacing he possesses over his defender ... Not a prolific 3-point shooter, but certainly a highly accurate one ... Versatility of his offensive game allows him to not have to rely on the long-range shot like most shooters do ... Will challenge bigger players in traffic, and can adequately play the power forward as well as the three spot and both backcourt positions ... A fine passer, not just because he can spot teammates out of the corner of his eye, but because he keeps his head up with his dribble, handles the ball frequently, and can see over the top of the defense ... Could be described as a poor man's Mike Miller, the 2001 NBA Rookie of the Year ... Like many players of that mold, unselfishness can serve as a limiting factor.


http://www.collegehoopsnet.com/Draft/Prospects/LJackson.htm



This guy has had 2 triple doubles  and youre trying to say hes one dimensional :laugh: 

Im not touting him as a superstar but hes more skilled than you are trying to make him out to be .


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> whoa mate.
> ...


common - u and Arenas r not even on the same Zip Code when it comes to that - Arenas is so much better than u when it comes to pissing up other posters


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> http://www.nbadraftreport.com/jacksonscoutingreport.htm
> ...


Again, look at the competition and look at the makeup of that team. If a guy has the ball in his hands 75% of the time, he is going to put up stats. Do you honestly think he is going to be able to do that with an Artest or a Pietrus or a Josh Howard, even, guarding him? If so, your kidding yourself


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> Indeed u r.
> I'm not saying he's a point fwd and I know he did everything in a bad team in a bad conf'.I also agree with HKF it becomes harder to dribble or pass in the higher level. *But still - he's not only a shooter , he scored throughout the season in many different ways , what I'm saying I might agree he's not a star in the league and probably be a good bench player or averege starter (his Best case is higher) - but imo he's not one dimensional.*


Good post bullet. I am not really saying that he is one-dimensional, it's just that guys before him have had similar games and ended up becoming one-dimensional because that was their way to stick in the league. You start to realize that Jackson's ball-handling is sloppy, which it is, he didn't turn it over a lot but in the pros, these turn into steals. Since he is not a very good one on one player (on this level), you are going to have create shots for him for two reasons.

a) perimeter defense has gotten world's better
b) shot clock is much shorter and you have to get shots off quickly because guys really close on the shooters. With his type of ball-handling (dribbles out in front of his body), he will be prone to turnovers.


That's all I have to say on Jackson. I don't want people to think I don't like him, I just don't see him being better than Josh Howard was and Howard was the last pick of the first round (where he should have been picked, even if he had a good season, if he was not on Dallas he would not have been as great looking).


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> thats your opinion, i have got mine. the difference is, when I state mine, it gets labeled as "hate". If i hated him, why would i say he did so well or that he beat up on Igoudala?


I did not call u hater.

I respect your opinion , though I think too many times its based on the writing more than the seeing.not that it's bad getting the info from articles or the net (like most info) , and i know u'r buisy in the industry - but sometimes when u see too many players and read about others u tend to forget u havn't seen them enough really to say they can't pass (I'm just kidding with ya)


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> common - u and Arenas r not even on the same Zip Code when it comes to that - Arenas is so much better than u when it comes to pissing up other posters


it isnt about pissing others off, its stating an opinion that isnt popular and then watching others try to bait you, mock you, and call you a hater or stupid. Arenas, for instance, didnt start off as an instigator when he got here. But he didnt have a popular opinion on some things. the amount of taunts he took changed him. I mean, there was even a petition to get him banned, which was probably the lowest thing this board has seen. So i dont blame him at all. I have an opinion, you have yours. I dont openly mock your opinions cause I respect you. I will go out of my way to congratulate you. However, when it comes to this kid, the hype is over the top. This kid will not be able to put the ball on the floor at the NBA level.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Casey Jacobsen-always touted as a shooter
> 
> Wesley Person-always touted as a shooter /starter for several years averaged double figures 8-10 years hes been in the league
> 
> ...


:laugh: If Jackson turns out like person,Leonard,or even better Johnson for a pick in the twenties who couldnt be happy ?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> I dont openly mock your opinions cause I respect you. I will go out of my way to congratulate you.


Wow i rarely see Lucas try to piss anyone off, But Arenas is a different story, Arenas is the tottall oposite of above quote.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Good post bullet. I am not really saying that he is one-dimensional, it's just that guys before him have had similar games and ended up becoming one-dimensional because that was their way to stick in the league. You start to realize that Jackson's ball-handling is sloppy, which it is, he didn't turn it over a lot but in the pros, these turn into steals. Since he is not a very good one on one player (on this level), you are going to have create shots for him for two reasons.
> ...


I think he should be happy if he turns as successful as Josh Howard. And yes - I agree his numbers look so nice cause without Ridnour he really did everything on that team , and it would probably take him time to adjust to nba.

But creating your own shot is not always speed and quickness only - It's also BB IQ which I think Luke got(players like Mullin that was slower than rlucas grandmother that was mentioned before was always able to make the 2 inches for an open one) - so he's got a way to go and he won't be no Mullin or Peja at the end of it , but still a worthy (not James) nba player aventually imo.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh: If Jackson turns out like person,Leonard,or even better Johnson for a pick in the twenties who couldnt be happy ?


What if he turns out like Jacobsen, Hoiberg and Kapono? Will you be laughing then?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> But creating your own shot is not always speed and quickness only - It's also BB IQ which I think Luke got(players like Mullin that was slower than rlucas grandmother that was mentioned before was always able to make the 2 inches for an open one) - so he's got a way to go and he won't be no Mullin or Peja at the end of it , but still a worthy (not James) nba player aventually imo.


Mullin is a HOF though (or he better be). He was great.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

HKF, I almost always agree with you but, in this case, I don't. I'm guessing you'll think I'm nuts, but can you tell me the difference between college Richard Hamilton and Luke Jackson? I think they are very similar players in almost every aspect, except Jackson is a better 3-point shooter. Do you remember before the 99 draft, people were saying simlar things about Rip? One-dimensional. Can't create his own shot. Not very athletic. Not a good defender. No big potential long-term. He's turned out pretty well. I'm not saying Luke will be as good but I don't see any reason he can't be close. Rip is one of the best players in the league off-the-ball. I don't know if Jackson's got that, but I think he's better than Rip with the ball in his hands. 

In the many games I saw him play, I saw not only a great shooter, but a guy who could also get his shot off whenever he wanted. He's not super athletic or quick but does have a quick first step and can flat-out score. He's also an above-average passer. No, he's not Jason Kidd, but he can find people well for 2/3.

I think Luke Jackson has "it" and will surprise a lot of people by not only being a decent pro but a very good one. If he falls to us in the 2nd round, that would be a gigantic steal.

Just my opinion, of course...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> I think he should be happy if he turns as successful as Josh Howard. And yes - I agree his numbers look so nice cause without Ridnour he really did everything on that team , and it would probably take him time to adjust to nba.
> ...


my granma would drive on him allday! 

no honestly, there is always a need for shooters in the pro game and so therefore he should be picked. But I just dont see him as a legit go to guy to get points. I mean, what would he do with a guy like Artest on him? Or a guy like Pietrus? or heck, a Jonathan Bender? I dont think he could do much. he would need to be a in a system that plays wide open ball. I dont think that system will be here. But this is the thing. if you trade down, to take this kid, and pass on a potential special talent like Dorrell Wright to do it, then isnt it counterproductive in the end? We arent in the market for any more plodders. We have that. What we need is a star, or atleast a kid with a chance at being one. In this draft, there is no star per se (like James) but there are 15 kids with a chance. And we need to be looking in those 15 kids. Jackson isnt one of them


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Again, look at the competition and look at the makeup of that team. If a guy has the ball in his hands 75% of the time, he is going to put up stats. Do you honestly think he is going to be able to do that with an Artest or a Pietrus or a Josh Howard, even, guarding him? If so, your kidding yourself


We dont play Artest or pIetrus or Howard every night .You keep bringing up the the best defenders as if they are the norm when they are not .hes not coming into carry the team but to play a role .If we are basing our offense around Curry getting double teamed I dont think he will have much of a problem .

The triple doubles were not from this year so I dont think competition can be used as a excuse as he had Ridnour last year and Jones on the squad 2 years ago .

The point is if hes as one dimensional as you claims he wouldnt be able to get a triple double ever because his passing or ebouding skills wouldnt be good enough .

This guy does whatever is needed to get his team a win and is very skilled these are the types of player we should want .He will be a steal in the 20's .


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> it isnt about pissing others off, its stating an opinion that isnt popular and then watching others try to bait you, mock you, and call you a hater or stupid. Arenas, for instance, didnt start off as an instigator when he got here. But he didnt have a popular opinion on some things. the amount of taunts he took changed him. I mean, there was even a petition to get him banned, which was probably the lowest thing this board has seen. So i dont blame him at all. I have an opinion, you have yours. I dont openly mock your opinions cause I respect you. I will go out of my way to congratulate you. However, when it comes to this kid, the hype is over the top. This kid will not be able to put the ball on the floor at the NBA level.


]

rlucas - I'm not and never did consider u a hater.

the difference with arenas (which I'm fine with) is that the problems start with posts like - "most rediculous , laughable , anyone who thinks must be crazy" etc , thats when people get pissed off.

Maybe the hype is over the top - can't tell u cause I'm not feeling here in Israel any hype


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> What if he turns out like Jacobsen, Hoiberg and Kapono? Will you be laughing then?


Why would he ?

Hes a better ballhandler and passer than Jacobsen .

He has more size and skills than Kapono I dont even know why hes mentioned .

If hes a 6'6 Hoiberg that wouldnt be bad thing .Hoiberg plays hard ,hustles,can shoot ,make the pass, handle the ball and take it strong for the dunk his only problem is hes 6'3-6'4 .

If Jackson can do that and he is a late 1st rd pick 20-30 whats the problem with that ?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>thebizkit69u</b>!
> 
> 
> Wow i rarely see Lucas try to piss anyone off, But Arenas is a different story, Arenas is the tottall oposite of above quote.


If having a different opinion pisses someone off, I really could careless, but if I said something personal against you, that's a completely different story.

I don't think I've done that, but that has definitely been done to me 

Anyway I'll say the fascination here with guys like Luke Jackson is just ? There's a ton of talent in this draft so there are guys I'm going to be excited about before this kid, it's not that he sucks, although last time I saw him was against Michigan in the NIT, (was he even better than Robinson Jr?), and was not impressed.

2nd round I definitely think he deserves a look, but trading down to get him at 16 or 17 is not what our club needs.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> We dont play Artest or pIetrus or Howard every night .You keep bringing up the the best defenders as if they are the norm when they are not .hes not coming into carry the team but to play a role .If we are basing our offense around Curry getting double teamed I dont think he will have much of a problem .
> ...


So he doesnt play the Artests and Pietrus every night, but he has to guard a legit 2/3 almost every night in the east. What he is going to do with TMac come to town? Or Vince? Or James? Or Redd? or Butler? or Pierce? Or Rip/Prince? Or RJ? These guys would just destroy him. Absolutely destroy him. And these guys arent the best defenders in the world, but they make it so you spend all your energy guarding them. Id rather have a guy I know who could handle the ball, who could attack these type of players, and who has the ability to move his feet on the other end of the court. Wasnt it bad enough watching Jamal look bad on D? This kid makes Jamal look like Michael Cooper


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

No I don't think you are crazy PC. Like I said I like him, just not as much as others do. 

They were saying that about Rip Hamilton, but he was a flat out winner and leader of a championship team (how UConn beat that Duke team I will never know). 

Rip also has the best mid-range game (outside of Kobe) in the league. He has found his niche, but how long did it take him to become a useful player. Rip was also a pure SG. Jackson is a tweener, who neither quick enough to defend good-to-great SG's (I dread T-Mac, James, Kobe, Allen being defended by him) and at 6'7 being that he is not overly physical (by pro standards), how does he defend the 6'10 SF's in the league. He is in a no-man's land IMO. 

Very good offensive player, but as we see, offense seems to drop in the NBA because the defense is so good.

In the hypothetical, if Jackson were to not be a consistent offensive player (like over 10 a game), would you consider keeping him on the team as valuable?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Why would he ?
> ...


Was/Is Hoiberg worth trading down to pick up in the middle of the first round?

That's what some of us are saying, it's not that the kid sucks, but I wouldn't even pay attention to him until the 2nd round, especially when you're talking of trading down.

If we trade down it should be to fill 2-3 holes by getting someone's multiple picks, not trading down to pick up a role player in the middle of the first round.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> ]
> 
> rlucas - I'm not and never did consider u a hater.
> ...


look at Basgs posts for the hate comment. this thread was an open attempt to question an opinion i stated, rather correctly i might add, yesterday. Thats the difference

As for hype, your a smart guy. If you spend any time in the draft thread, you feel the hype. you could be in Nepal and as long as you have an internet connection and know where to read draft stuff, youll read the hype. being in israel has nothing to do with it

for the record, I think Jacobsen was a better player then this kid at the same stage in their career


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> If hes a 6'6 Hoiberg that wouldnt be bad thing .Hoiberg plays hard ,hustles,can shoot ,make the pass, handle the ball and take it strong for the dunk his only problem is hes 6'3-6'4 .
> 
> If Jackson can do that and he is a late 1st rd pick 20-30 whats the problem with that ?


Why would anyone take a 6'6 Hoiberg (as you put it) in the first round? If this is what you value as talent, no wonder you think it is a good idea.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Why would anyone take a 6'6 Hoiberg (as you put it) in the first round? If this is what you value as talent, no wonder you think it is a good idea.


Amen.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

Come on guys you are wavering too much here. If you think he's going to be good stick with your opinion. I have been following Jackson from the begining of the season, this guy is not a guaranteed bench player. And Jackson is certainly not going to be available when the second round begins. 

The truth is it is becoming harder and harder to guage wich players are going to be succesfull in the NBA. Any player can get better, any player can get worse. Some players talents do flourish within the NBA others don't. This draft is going to be especially dificult. But one of our main weeknesses is our shooting and Jackson has proved more than just about anyone else in the draft he can be succesful at this. He is also a team player with a solid work ethic, and strong passer. I would definitely enjoy seeing him continue his development as a basketball player in a Bulls uniform.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> So he doesnt play the Artests and Pietrus every night, but he has to guard a legit 2/3 almost every night in the east. What he is going to do with TMac come to town? Or Vince? Or James? Or Redd? or Butler? or Pierce? Or Rip/Prince? Or RJ? These guys would just destroy him. Absolutely destroy him. And these guys arent the best defenders in the world, but they make it so you spend all your energy guarding them. Id rather have a guy I know who could handle the ball, who could attack these type of players, and who has the ability to move his feet on the other end of the court. Wasnt it bad enough watching Jamal look bad on D? This kid makes Jamal look like Michael Cooper


Who said he was starting ?He would be a player coming off the bench and filling a role. 

In most scenarios if we tarde down we are not taking a starter with those picks but filling out our depth .We would look to use our Mle on a veteran sf more than likely S.jackson but who is touting him as a starter .

The guys like VC,Tmac,Pierce,Redd,Kobe, you stop them with good team defense because not everybody has a Artest.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> my granma would drive on him allday!
> ...


I'd take dorrel over him - and I've never seen Dorrel play (just reading info)

Artest is not a good example cause out of like 300 players in the league how many can score on him??not fair.
Like Pavlo (who I insist was never a shooter) or Planic or Wally(today) - what would they do against Ron except get themselves some nice bruises.
Kobe,T-Mac,Pierce,Allen and some others can hardly score when crazy ron gaurds them then what r u asking from a college player who won't even get close to their level.

If scoring on Artest is the way to say if a player is good enough to play in the nba we'd have about 2 teams with 3 players each !


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Qwst25</b>!
> Come on guys you are wavering too much here. If you think he's going to be good stick with your opinion. I have been following Jackson from the begining of the season, this guy is not a guaranteed bench player. And Jackson is certainly not going to be available when the second round begins.
> 
> The truth is it is becoming harder and harder to guage wich players are going to be succesfull in the NBA. Any player can get better, any player can get worse. Some players talents do flourish within the NBA others don't. This draft is going to be especially dificult. But one of our main weeknesses is our shooting and Jackson has proved more than just about anyone else in the draft he can be succesful at this. He is also a team player with a solid work ethic, and strong passer. I would definitely enjoy seeing him continue his development as a basketball player in a Bulls uniform.


as a second round pick, i have no problem


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd take dorrel over him - and I've never seen Dorrel play (just reading info)
> ...


thats not what I am saying. I am saying that a good defender will lock him up because he cant create his own shot. A good offensive player will light him cause he cant defend. A good offensive/defensive player, like an Artest would destroy him. Why not atleast take a chance on a kid who COULD possibly stand up to the best?


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> look at Basgs posts for the hate comment. this thread was an open attempt to question an opinion i stated, rather correctly i might add, yesterday. Thats the difference
> ...


And I'm not saying he's gonna be any better than Jacobson - I just think we can use a player like him.

I was Joking about the hype - but I gotta tell u , I've been to Nepal - and I only felt one kind of Hype there


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> And I'm not saying he's gonna be any better than Jacobson - I just think we can use a player like him.
> ...


Now that is one place I would like to visit that I havent. 

We could certainly use a player like Jackson. I havent been against him being a Bull once. We could use Jacobsen too. But to trade down, like my source said, to take him in the first? No way. He would officially be on my radar in round 2 with either pick.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Why would anyone take a 6'6 Hoiberg (as you put it) in the first round? If this is what you value as talent, no wonder you think it is a good idea.


The point is youve basically making him out to be a standstill low skill shooter which he is not .

Did you read the the long list of scouting reports ?It seems that only you and Rlucas thinks he is one dimensional when the fact is almost everyone seems to think there is nothing he cant do offensively well enough for the nba but the that his defense is what he has to work on .

The kid is reported to have a great work ethic so you have no idea of how he will be able to defend in the pros because defense is about effort hustle ,technic.

for all we know he could turn into the next dan Majerle :laugh:


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> thats not what I am saying. I am saying that a good defender will lock him up because he cant create his own shot. A good offensive player will light him cause he cant defend. A good offensive/defensive player, like an Artest would destroy him. Why not atleast take a chance on a kid who COULD possibly stand up to the best?


Like I said - personally I'd take Dorrel or JR Smith ahead of him .

and again - the league is FULL with players abused by Artest.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

C'mon now. Let's not draft <i>any</i> wing player because Artest and Bowen will shut them down. Great philosophy there.

You guys know I'm high on Jackson so no need to ramrod the point. He had a good workout, kudos to him. And taking things a step further, he had a good workout and probably lit up Sato a guy whom most view as a 2nd round sleeper and future shutdown defender at the 2.

Why all the hate on Jackson? The kid doesn't have the perfect game but he has the work ethic to become better. He's going to make some team very happy on day 1.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> The point is youve basically making him out to be a standstill low skill shooter which he is not .
> ...


Oh Thunder Dan, the same guy who allowed Jordan to average 45 against him in the finals? Thanks, but no thanks


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Now that is one place I would like to visit that I havent.
> 
> We could certainly use a player like Jackson. I havent been against him being a Bull once. We could use Jacobsen too. But to trade down, like my source said, to take him in the first? No way. He would officially be on my radar in round 2 with either pick.


I don't think he'll be there on the 2nd round.

Trading down to get him seems alittle odd - depend if he means down like 20-30 pick down , and depends what we get on that trade down.I'd pick Jackson at that range but again - it all depends on who's available.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> The point is youve basically making him out to be a standstill low skill shooter which he is not .
> ...


I didn't read the scouting reports. I watch enough college basketball to think that I know a player and what he is capable of. I have watched him on FOX sports net for 4 years at Oregon. He has improved (but I am hating on him because I see him as a bench player, then I am hater). There is nothing in those reports that is going to make me change my opinion. Reason, I watched him enough times to formulate my opinions.

Only with Foreign players do I read the scouting reports and you are right he could be the next Dan Majerle, although he isn't that athlete "Thunder" was.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> C'mon now. Let's not draft <i>any</i> wing player because Artest and Bowen will shut them down. Great philosophy there.
> 
> You guys know I'm high on Jackson so no need to ramrod the point. He had a good workout, kudos to him. And taking things a step further, he had a good workout and probably lit up Sato a guy whom most view as a 2nd round sleeper and future shutdown defender at the 2.
> ...


read the posts before bashing the philosophy. What I said is that a good defender can stop him and since he cant stop anyone, which is a fact, then why take him? You can call that hate, but there is alot of truth. He just isnt good enough to make a real good player work very hard.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh Thunder Dan, the same guy who allowed Jordan to average 45 against him in the finals? Thanks, but no thanks


In MJ's case - he did not need his defenders permission to score 45.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I did not oppose to the Bulls drafting him at all. I never said he shouldn't be drafted. I just said I am opposed to them trading up for him.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> In MJ's case - he did not need his defenders permission to score 45.


That was terrible D they played on him. Dan got so abused that they had to put KJ on him. Majerle was a cult hero in Phoenix, but wasnt really much of a player in my opinion. When they needed him most, he airballed an open 12 footer.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> I did not oppose to the Bulls drafting him at all. I never said he shouldn't be drafted. I just said I am opposed to them trading up for him.


down


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> down


Right. Down my bad.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> That was terrible D they played on him. Dan got so abused that they had to put KJ on him. Majerle was a cult hero in Phoenix, but wasnt really much of a player in my opinion. When they needed him most, he airballed an open 12 footer.


lol

Yes it was bad defense they played on him , my point was that MJ could score 45 ppg in a playoffs series against Artest/Bowen....


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> We could certainly use a player like Jackson. I havent been against him being a Bull once. We could use Jacobsen too.  But to trade down, like my source said, to take him in the first? No way. He would officially be on my radar in round 2 with either pick.


My question is of the players who are expected to be taken in the 15-30 pick range who is more talented than Luke Jackson, is there really a big difference talentwise? I'm not saying we trade down to get him, but I don't think it is out of the question that we could make a trade for a mid-first round pick. Why is it so important to wait until the second round if he's the type of player that the Bulls could certainly use?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> read the posts before bashing the philosophy. What I said is that a good defender can stop him and since he cant stop anyone, which is a fact, then why take him? You can call that hate, but there is alot of truth. He just isnt good enough to make a real good player work very hard.


Tayshaun Prince- brittle, not quick enough to play the 3. Josh Howard - average athleticism at the next level, slow with lateral quickness. Two cases of guys drafted mid to late 1st round due to issues with quickness and defending a position at the next level. So if you wanna run a list of role players ala Kapono, Jacobsen, Garrity, Hoiberg, etc. I will tell you that Jackson is more athletic than ALL of them.

IMO Jackson has more in common with the former two players rather than the latter players mentioned.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Qwst25</b>!
> 
> 
> My question is of the players who are expected to be taken in the 15-30 pick range who is more talented than Luke Jackson, is there really a big difference talentwise? I'm not saying we trade down to get him, but I don't think it is out of the question that we could make a trade for a mid-first round pick. Why is it so important to wait until the second round if he's the type of player that the Bulls could certainly use?


talent wise?

Dorrell wright
Andre Igoudala
JR Smith
Al Jefferson
Sergei Monya

and this is just the 2/3s without much thought


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> IMO Jackson has more in common with the former two players rather than the latter players mentioned.


Only difference is those guys were good enough to get their teams to the NCAA tournaments as seniors (in Howard's case was a complete surprise), while Jackson, even with his individual brilliance, got smoked in the NIT semifinals.

Also Tayshaun Prince is such a long defender. Look how long that guy is. 6'9 with 7'0 wingspan. He is a very useful defender.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Tayshaun Prince- brittle, not quick enough to play the 3. Josh Howard - average athleticism at the next level, slow with lateral quickness. Two cases of guys drafted mid to late 1st round due to issues with quickness and defending a position at the next level. So if you wanna run a list of role players ala Kapono, Jacobsen, Garrity, Hoiberg, etc. I will tell you that Jackson is more athletic than ALL of them.
> ...


But Prince could get his own shot and was considered quick enough to be a 3 in the league. I never once heard anyone question Howards lateral quickness. And Howard again would run circles around this kid. 

It was HKF who made the comparisons to Kapono etc. And frankly, I agree with him.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> lol
> ...


Yeah, but at least Ron Ron might break a couple of his ribs for kicks. :laugh:


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> talent wise?
> 
> ...


Al Jefferson is a 4 and Monya is not as talented imo.
Iggy is gone in top 10.

Dorrel and JR have got a bigger upside.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, but at least Ron Ron might break a couple of his ribs for kicks. :laugh:


there is no way Jordan would AVERAGE 45 OVER 6 GAMES AGAINST RON ARTEST. There is just no way


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> Al Jefferson is a 4 and Monya is not as talented imo.
> ...


Monya is far more talent imo and the only reason he will be there at 14 or lower is cause of contract issues

iggy is falling big time and maybe there at the point in the draft

Jefferson is a 3 and everyone has been very pleased with his ball handling and shooting ability. 

Wright and JR are a different league in terms of upside then Jacko


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Al Jefferson ain't no 2/3. Rlucas I am sorry for the haterade comment. Out of line on my part. It just seems that unless a kid is Euro or a HSer you don't like him. Jackson is a hard working kid who spent 4 years at a Division I school like Oregon, improved a lot over his time there and will continue to improve. Picking him late 1st rd(assuming we get the 5 or 6 pick and trade down) would not be the worst thing in the world. Oh and this thread was not started to question your comment. I was wanted some clarification on what you thought of Jackson and how he compares to Pavlovic.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Al Jefferson is a 4. Josh Childress is a 3. I think if Childress gets taken before 20 than Jackson will be taken before 24.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> there is no way Jordan would AVERAGE 45 OVER 6 GAMES AGAINST RON ARTEST. There is just no way


Probably not he just get 37-38 PER GAME :laugh:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

can i add Kris Humphries, kirk Snyder, Damir Omerhodzic, Kevin Martin (huge sleeper) and Ryan Gomes to my list as well?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> there is no way Jordan would AVERAGE 45 OVER 6 GAMES AGAINST RON ARTEST. There is just no way


Nah, not 45, but man, I would have loved to see those guys go at it if they were both in their primes. Ron Ron would never have backed down from Jordan. He crazy, lately in a good way.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Only difference is those guys were good enough to get their teams to the NCAA tournaments as seniors (in Howard's case was a complete surprise), while Jackson, even with his individual brilliance, got smoked in the NIT semifinals.


So we should only draft players based on NCAA performance? Is Tyus Edney available?

Chris Bosh, Jarvis Hayes, and Marcus Banks shouldn't have been draft last year then right?


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, but at least Ron Ron might break a couple of his ribs for kicks. :laugh:


That would slow him down for sure - but he'd still score 45


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> Al Jefferson ain't no 2/3. Rlucas I am sorry for the haterade comment. Out of line on my part. It just seems that unless a kid is Euro or a HSer you don't like him. Jackson is a hard working kid who spent 4 years at a Division I school like Oregon, improved a lot over his time there and will continue to improve. Picking him late 1st rd(assuming we get the 5 or 6 pick and trade down) would not be the worst thing in the world. Oh and this thread was not started to question your comment. I was wanted some clarification on what you thought of Jackson and how he compares to Pavlovic.


and the exact opposite can be said of you. 

read my posts before labeling me in any of your rift raft. I am out there supporting guys who I like. In this draft, there isnt one college player i am enthralled with. last year, there was a ton. 

As for the Jackson is a hard working comment, who knows really? I mean has anyone been at an Oregon practice to see his habits? Has he gotten much better over the years? Note to Basgs, next comment isnt directed at you, this sounds like the whole Pax theory of a player must not know how to work until he has been in college comment, which was an utter load of trash.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> That would slow him down for sure - but he'd still score 45


he wouldnt average 45 over 6 games against Ron Artest. Majerle was so awful in that series. his defense in game 4 was the worst defense I have seen out of a guy in a big game in league history. And what was amazing was the hype the Arizona Republic built on him as a good defensive player. Jordan didnt average 45 against Hersey Hawkins for instance, or Jeff Hornacek


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> So we should only draft players based on NCAA performance? Is Tyus Edney available?
> ...


I'm just saying that team success should be taken into account, if the Bulls are trying to change the losing culture here as well. That's all I was saying. Sometimes great statistics can be empty if they don't lead to anything.

Luis Flores lead the NCAA in scoring and he probably will go undrafted.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Al Jefferson is a 4. Josh Childress is a 3. I think if Childress gets taken before 20 than Jackson will be taken before 24.


one team in particular was really blown away with Jeffersons ability to handle the ball and shoot the mid range jump shot and called him an Al Harrington type. Not a pure 3, but can certainly play there


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Tyus Edney is available actually and is probably a better 1 then pargo. that guy is a winner


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> he wouldnt average 45 over 6 games against Ron Artest. Majerle was so awful in that series. his defense in game 4 was the worst defense I have seen out of a guy in a big game in league history. And what was amazing was the hype the Arizona Republic built on him as a good defensive player. Jordan didnt average 45 against Hersey Hawkins for instance, or Jeff Hornacek


Maybe not 45.

But Jordan not scoring 45 on Hawkins or Hornacek had to do with MJ alone , not the defenders.MJ was used to the best defender on the other team trying to get a piece of him.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe not 45.
> ...


bullet, jordan was a great scorer. but that phoenix team had no concept of how to play D, and Majerle was the start of their problems. I dont care if your jordan, lebron, tmac, kareem or jesus christ, there is no way you should be able to score 45 ppg over a game series in the championship. Jordan was great, but to get nearly 50 a night? that was bad D.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

> In this draft, there isnt one college player i am enthralled with


Rlucas, did I read this right? Not one player that went to college? When I first read that I thought you meant college seniors which I could understand but that ain't what this says.????


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> one team in particular was really blown away with Jeffersons ability to handle the ball and shoot the mid range jump shot and called him an Al Harrington type. Not a pure 3, but can certainly play there


No way IMO - he's a 4 closer to 5,6,7,8 than to 2 or 3.Handles like Fizer.

I like Snyder and Gomes but I'd still take Luke over them.
Damir and Martin can wait for the 39th or 32nd.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> one team in particular was really blown away with Jeffersons ability to handle the ball and shoot the mid range jump shot and called him an Al Harrington type. Not a pure 3, but can certainly play there


HKF and rlucas, but speaking of pure statistics, you have to give it up for a guys that averaged 38-39 points a game. That's just insane. Jefferson is going to be able to score in the league.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Tyus Edney is available actually and is probably a better 1 then pargo. that guy is a winner


Edney took a dive (for money) to sit out the NCAA championship game. And please don't tell me around his wrist :no: 

The plan backfired, UCLA won w/o Edney, and some bookies lost a lot of money


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> bullet, jordan was a great scorer. but that phoenix team had no concept of how to play D, and Majerle was the start of their problems. I dont care if your jordan, lebron, tmac, kareem or jesus christ, there is no way you should be able to score 45 ppg over a game series in the championship. Jordan was great, but to get nearly 50 a night? that was bad D.


I agree , no worries. That Suns team did not get to the finals cause of its defense.

and don't put them in the same group:

1. MJ:grinning: 
2.Christ/Moses/Mohamad/Bodhah (I'm an atheist anyway)
3.Kareem , T-Mac ,Lebron and the rest of the world

BTW - I think MJ would score 100+ points on Jesus (he couldn't run with his dress)


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> 
> 
> Rlucas, did I read this right? Not one player that went to college? When I first read that I thought you meant college seniors which I could understand but that ain't what this says.????


i like Kevin Martin

Emeka Okafor I like, however, I worry about his back and his lack of height at both the 4 and 5 spot

I like Deng, but I dont see a position. Alot of you want to call him the next Grant Hill. but someone called him Donyell Marshall. I think he is good, but not as good as some others

Devin Harris is my bust for the draft, followed closely by Jameer Nelson

I like Iggy

Ben Gordon doesnt do it for me. Call me a neutral. 

Kirk Snyder? Prob not

David Harrison. Bust

Luke Jackson- off the bench and ok at that

Kris Humphries - ok. can his game translate to the 3 in the NBA? I am unsure. 

Duhon? Nice player, Second rounder however

josh Childress is someone I like

Ryan Gomes- maybe a starter in the pros or maybe he is a smaller Fizer

Rafael Araujo- Nice player, but isnt he a bit out of shape for the pros? he is strong, but he is going to have a hard time guarding some of the perimeter 4s in the NBA, while not being enough of a scorer on the block to punish these types

So as you can see, these are the list of guys that I think could be first rounders from college. Not many of them. Some I like, others I dont. Clearly the talent lies in the international kids and HS kids. This is just the way it is. Rather then fight the inevitibale, its time to embrace it


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> HKF and rlucas, but speaking of pure statistics, you have to give it up for a guys that averaged 38-39 points a game. That's just insane. Jefferson is going to be able to score in the league.


I'd like to know what league he was playing in before I'd give those stats a ton of merit.

If he was doing that at NBA High aka Oak Hill, then woah, but if he's playing in a normal public high league, he SHOULD have put up those kind of #s.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

DMD, I think I said Jefferson would do well in the NBA as a scorer. In fact, I hear alot of teams think he could be a 3. Great midrange game off the dribble I hear

As for HS stats, i think they hold some clues. just cause a kid can score a 100 in a HS game doesnt mean he can do it in the league. However the opposite rings true. Curry didnt average 10 bds his senior year in HS. How can we expect him to do that in the league?


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

IMO jefferson is way too heavy to play the 3.at the moment he's too heavy to play the 4 , so step by step.

Roy Jones sat 6 hours in the sauna and lost like 8 pounds over night(and Lost to an ex Junkee) so who knows?!?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> IMO jefferson is way too heavy to play the 3.at the moment he's too heavy to play the 4 , so step by step.
> 
> Roy Jones sat 6 hours in the sauna and lost like 8 pounds over night(and Lost to an ex Junkee) so who knows?!?


isnt Artest 6-7 245? Jefferson is is 6-9 250. That is the same size as Al Harrington. And apparently he is move offensively skilled then either player at the same age


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> isnt Artest 6-7 245? Jefferson is is 6-9 250. That is the same size as Al Harrington. And apparently he is move offensively skilled then either player at the same age


Numbers say nothing about footwork.
from what I've seen he's way too slow - he is not as quick as Fizer , so make the math.
Another player with tons of talent (and body) and only 2 questionable issues:

Conditioning
defense


sounds farmiliar??

Great offensive player though , but too heavy to gaurd pf's (and for u too heavy to gaurd Luke Jackson) - I mean u think luke Jackson is not quick enough to gaurd sf's (and probably right) but u think this talented but heavy Tank (I've seen listings of 265 ) could even chase them???


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

> I like Deng, but I dont see a position. Alot of you want to call him the next Grant Hill. but someone called him Donyell Marshall. I think he is good, but not as good as some others


I find this so funny. Deng is a true SF. You sure have wavered on him. I remember you saying he was the single best perimeter threat in this draft. You had him and Okafor as 1 and 1a in this draft. I don't think he is Grant Hill but the boy is a prototype SF prospect. And to think you now think Jefferson who not long ago was 280+ can play SF but apparently you now think Deng can't? I am confused.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> 
> 
> I find this so funny. Deng is a true SF. You sure have wavered on him. I remember you saying he was the single best perimeter threat in this draft. You had him and Okafor as 1 and 1a in this draft. I don't think he is Grant Hill but the boy is a prototype SF prospect. And to think you now think Jefferson who not long ago was 280+ can play SF but apparently you now think Deng can't? I am confused.


funny or not, its my opinion that you like to ridicule so much. lets start a ban rlucas club while we are at it. Deng is a good player. You will never find me ever changing on that. I like him. But to say he is a prototypical 3 isnt exactly true either. Most of his work comes in the paint, not 18 feet off the floor. Perhaps, myself and KC are stupid for bringing the Donyell marshall thing up, but he is far closer to Marshall then Hill, a comparison that you have made. For our team, we really need a Grant Hill. And Josh Smith is the closest thing I have seen to Hill

As for Okafor, i like him but have grown more suspicious of him as the season went on actually. And now I find myself closer to Johnstons point of view. Again, my opinion

As for Jefferson, I dont know enough about him. But I know a team has looked at him recently and was particularly impressed by his ability to know down the midrange shot and his handles. I am reporting it. And now you use it as a way to make me look like i am contradicting myself? Perhaps I shouldnt share anything with the board again?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> Numbers say nothing about footwork.
> ...


again, I am reporting what I heard. But I know one thing, this kid can create his own shot. And he could beat people up around the low block. 

As for jacko, how many times do i have to say it? Not good enough to put pressure on the good defenders in this league, and not good enough to stop the top offensive players. thats not a good combo where I sit


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Don't let me stop you from posting. You bring too much to this board for that. I have no issue with you. I do with arenas but that should not affect me and you. We just disagree on players a lot.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> Don't let me stop you from posting. You bring too much to this board for that. I have no issue with you. I do with arenas but that should not affect me and you. We just disagree on players a lot.


then treat me with respect rather then twisting my words and ridiculing my thoughts


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I apologize. I will phrase things differently. You know I am real high on Deng. I have wavered away from the Grant Hill comparision. I realize he is not Grant. He is however IMO a really good SF prospect. We would be lucky to have him.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> In the hypothetical, if Jackson were to not be a consistent offensive player (like over 10 a game), would you consider keeping him on the team as valuable?


Of course not. Offense, and more specifically scoring, is his strength. If he's not doing that, he's far less valuable. However, I think he will be doing that and more. 

Also, a lot of players who don't have great lateral quickness can improve defensively by improving technique and can at least become good off-the-ball/help defenders and impact the game that way. Larry Bird is a great example of that, same with Reggie Miller and Glen Rice. All winners and all very good NBA players. (I'm not at all saying he's going to be near the same caliber as those guys, simply using them as examples) He'll never be a defensive stud, by any means, but a lot of great players aren't.

The kid's definitely first-round talent and a lot of teams that pass on him will regret it in a couple years. That, I am willing to bet on.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> But he is neither a good passer, finisher at the rim or break.


Wrong. He's very good at all three. He's great in transition and has posterized more than a few elite defenders with punch dunks out of nowhere.



> Sure, he brings a nice jump shot, but Pavlovic does too,


Pavlovic shot 27% from three this year.



> and the guy is an athlete who happens to be bigger and stronger and a far more complete player inspite being a year or 2 younger.


Pavlovic is 6'7", 210. Jackson is 6'7", listed at 215 but might be a tad bigger. Pavlovic has more guard skills, but Jackson has more forward skills.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Wrong. He's very good at all three. He's great in transition and has posterized more than a few elite defenders with punch dunks out of nowhere.
> ...


There are soooo many elite defenders in college today!


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> As for Pavlovic, i 100% disagree. The guy is a very good shooter. And in games this year, when he played extensive minutes, shot very well. however, he didnt get a ton of time and his number reflec that. but he is every bit the shooter Jackson is, and bigger and more athletic in the process


Korver didn't get a ton of time, yet he still shot lights out. 27% from three is not indicative of a shooter.

And as for defenders....why is Iguodala so revered as one when Jackson rung up 62 points in 2 games on him -- including 42/10 the second time they met? Or, rather, why are you discrediting Jackson's ability to score against elite defenders in light of such stats? And in case you're wondering, Iggy looked like total s**t going against Jackson. Quite frankly, he looked helpless trying to defend him.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Wrong. He's very good at all three. He's great in transition and has posterized more than a few elite defenders with punch dunks out of nowhere.
> ...


I know what NBA.com lists Pavlovic at, but at a workout last year, Pavlovic came in at 6-9. I will try and dig up the article for you


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Korver didn't get a ton of time, yet he still shot lights out. 27% from three is not indicative of a shooter.
> ...


Here we go again. Read my posts. I said he not only lit up Iggy in college, but apparently is doing so on a regular basis at Hoops. Still, look at the system he played in. He gets alot of shots. and it was an uptempo system. What does he do in a half court system where he touches the ball every 3rd time down the floor? how effective is he then? Is he going to defend well? I feel a stopper comment coming


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Do you honestly think he is going to be able to do that with an Artest or a Pietrus or a Josh Howard, even, guarding him? If so, your kidding yourself


Jackson hung up 42 points and 10 rebounds and fouled out Iggy in 22 minutes the second time Oregon played Arizona.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> There are soooo many elite defenders in college today!


42 on Iggy. That's all I gotta say.

42, and Iggy looked completely lost trying to guard Jackson.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Jackson hung up 42 points and 10 rebounds and fouled out Iggy in 22 minutes the second time Oregon played Arizona.


Lost by 24 and 13 both games.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> 42 on Iggy. That's all I gotta say.
> ...


Hmmm, maybe this is why Igoudala is dropping? 

And exactly how do you know that he looked lost? did you see that game? And considering it was a blowout, as in BIGTIME BLOWOUT, its fairly safe to say Jackson got alot of his points in garbage time


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Here we go again. Read my posts. I said he not only lit up Iggy in college, but apparently is doing so on a regular basis at Hoops. Still, look at the system he played in. He gets alot of shots. and it was an uptempo system.


So, what happens if he gets drafted by the Kings? Does he put up some legit numbers?



> What does he do in a half court system where he touches the ball every 3rd time down the floor? how effective is he then? Is he going to defend well? I feel a stopper comment coming


I imagine Luke would do just fine in the halfcourt. I also don't think he's anywhere close to being as bad a defender as you make him out to be. Let's be honest here -- how many Oregon games have you seen the last few years? I've seen around 20 over the last four seasons.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Lost by 24 and 13 both games.


Arizona had a handful of future NBA guys and a HOF coach.

Oregon had....Jackson. That's it. Seriously, check out their roster. It's a mess.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Hmmm, maybe this is why Igoudala is dropping?
> 
> And exactly how do you know that he looked lost? did you see that game?


Yes.



> And considering it was a blowout, as in BIGTIME BLOWOUT, its fairly safe to say Jackson got alot of his points in garbage time


Jackson fouled out Iggy in 22 minutes. He got most of his points in Iggy's grill, and looked quite comfortable doing it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> So, what happens if he gets drafted by the Kings? Does he put up some legit numbers?
> ...


I have seen 5 or 6. Not more then you. But I know the west coast scout of the Knicks fairly well. My guess is that he knows just a tad more then you. And he said this kid couldnt guard a brick wall. 

And how do we know he can can succeed in a half court game? They dont play one. Oh wait, Michigan slowed them down to a half court game in the NIT semifinal and this kid looked totally lost. But then again, you knew that. Right?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes.
> ...



They lost by 24. Are you honestly telling me that is a good game to judge him on? how about the semifinal against Michigan? Did he look so hot in that game? 

I dont know Oregons preseason situation, but i listen to HKF and they were favored to do much better then they did


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Gosh this thread, albeit a very good one, has the feel of Kirk v. Jamal. Same proponents on each side too. Hmmm

:grinning:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I have seen 5 or 6. Not more then you. But I know the west coast scout of the Knicks fairly well. My guess is that he knows just a tad more then you. And he said this kid couldnt guard a brick wall.


I wonder if this was the same guy who wondered if Hinrich was athletic enough to survive in the league. Or the one that chose Tractor Traylor before Pierce and Nowitzki? Or the one that chose Keyon Dooling or Trajan Langdon in the lottery? Or Marquis Daniels in the second round? 



> And how do we know he can can succeed in a half court game?


I don't know. I'm guessing.



> They dont play one. Oh wait, Michigan slowed them down to a half court game in the NIT semifinal and this kid looked totally lost. But then again, you knew that. Right?


Okay, that's one game. I can cite a ton of other "one-game" performances that indicate quite the opposite.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> I wonder if this was the same guy who wondered if Hinrich was athletic enough to survive in the league. Or the one that chose Tractor Traylor before Pierce and Nowitzki? Or the one that chose Keyon Dooling or Trajan Langdon in the lottery? Or Marquis Daniels in the second round?
> ...


I mean the guy is money. But Michigan clobbered him by 20 something points. He didnt do anything until Michigan took out its starting 5. He had 6 TOs. He looked lost. He certainly wasnt busting anyones "grill". Isnt that a better game to judge him on? Its a meaningful game on a neutral court. Or are you only going to pull out the good ones? Selective stat disclosure is not a good basis for an argument


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

this was his best game of the year in my opinion. 25ish type points on nice shooting in a close loss to Stanford

http://www.goducks.com/downloads1/419.pdf?ATCLID=32003&SPSID=4294&SPID=235&DB_OEM_ID=500


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Isnt that a better game to judge him on? Its a meaningful game on a neutral court.


It's the NIT. I'd venture to guess that Oregon vs. Arizona have a bit more energy in them.



> Or are you only going to pull out the good ones? Selective stat disclosure is not a good basis for an argument


Please. What part of 42 points don't you understand? I'm not making stuff up. I'm pointing out facts.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> He didnt do anything until Michigan took out its starting 5. He had 6 TOs. He looked lost. He certainly wasnt busting anyones "grill". Isnt that a better game to judge him on? Its a meaningful game on a neutral court.


This is what I mean when I say empty stats. This was a big game and he didn't show up, but in all those other games where he was putting up big numbers and they were still losing did it really make a difference. 

It's like Jamal Crawford's 50 point game this year. Does it really matter once your team is out of the race? Yeah it's nice and all, but it didn't do much because you still missed the playoffs.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> this was his best game of the year in my opinion. 25ish type points on nice shooting in a close loss to Stanford
> 
> http://www.goducks.com/downloads1/419.pdf?ATCLID=32003&SPSID=4294&SPID=235&DB_OEM_ID=500


Did you see that game?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> It's the NIT. I'd venture to guess that Oregon vs. Arizona have a bit more energy in them.
> ...


THEY LOST BY A TON. SO WHAT? HAVE YOU HEARD OF GARBAGE TIME? HOW MANY OF THOSE POINTS WERE SCORED BY A STARTER?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Did you see that game?


I sure did. He had a very bad first half and then scored 20 pts in a strong second half and did very well. he was better then childress that night.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> This is what I mean when I say empty stats. This was a big game and he didn't show up, but in all those other games where he was putting up big numbers and they were still losing did it really make a difference.
> ...


HKF, you contradict yourself. If Jackson's team failed to make the tournament and was "out of the race" and "missed the playoffs", then why is this situation different than the Bulls after it was known that they had no shot at the playoffs? Jackson put up big numbers during the regular season, when the games really mattered and the Ducks were trying to get in the tournament.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> This is what I mean when I say empty stats. This was a big game and he didn't show up, but in all those other games where he was putting up big numbers and they were still losing did it really make a difference.
> ...


i saw the Michigan games first half. He didnt do anything in the first half accept turn the ball over. This was against a very average michigan team. Though it was clear they focused on him. I went back and watched for a second with about 12 minutes to go to see if UM was still winning and by that point, their starters were pretty much done for the evening.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> THEY LOST BY A TON.


Compare teams. Orlando would lose to the Lakers by a ton. Does that make T-Mac a s****y player?



> SO WHAT? HAVE YOU HEARD OF GARBAGE TIME? HOW MANY OF THOSE POINTS WERE SCORED BY A STARTER?


Like I said, Jackson scored the bulk of those points before the game got out of hand. And he did it right in front of Iggy.

No need to shout.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

VV

quick question. one word. no explanation needed

Your picking 15ish. You can take Iggy or Jackson. Who do you take?

remember, one word


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Iggy.

His potential is far greater.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An interesting take on Luke Jackson*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Compare teams. Orlando would lose to the Lakers by a ton. Does that make T-Mac a s****y player?
> ...


I doubt he put up a majority of his 42 pts against Iggy. Its impressive that he fouled out a guy. But have you listened to me once yet? he is doing this to Iggy on a daily basis in Chicago. Iggy is dropping, partially because of this. Maybe Iggy isnt the player we all think he is. I like him, but he was never "my guy".


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Iggy.
> 
> His potential is far greater.


well that is 6 words. I rest my case


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> HKF, you contradict yourself. If Jackson's team failed to make the tournament and was "out of the race" and "missed the playoffs", then why is this situation different than the Bulls after it was known that they had no shot at the playoffs? Jackson put up big numbers during the regular season, when the games really mattered and the Ducks were trying to get in the tournament.


Didn't stop the Ducks from losing big game after big game. They were 15-12 after all of this. That may look like trying but it sure isn't succeeding. Most of Jackson's efforts were in losing causes. I don't want to hear that he had no help because if that is so true, how come California and Washington were better than Oregon. They were both young teams that were picked (rightfully so below them). Shouldn't Jackson have been good enough to squeeze some more wins out of there. 

11/21 Fresno State W 80-67 1-0 
12/2 Portland State W 62-55 2-0 
12/6 Marshall W 90-61 3-0 
12/13 at No. 14 Kansas L 77-67 3-1 
12/17 Santa Clara W 94-71 4-1 
12/20 Alabama L 87-86 4-2 
12/22 at Portland W 88-70 5-2 
01/2 at USC W 92-74 6-2 (1-0) 
01/4 at UCLA L 81-74 6-3 (1-1) 
01/10 at Oregon State L 90-81 6-4 (1-2) 
01/15 Washington W 84-74 7-4 (2-2) 
01/17 Washington State W 60-45 8-4 (3-2) 
01/22 at Arizona State W 83-76 9-4 (4-2) 
01/25 at No. 18 Arizona L 90-66 9-5 (4-3) CBS 
01/29 California W 68-56 10-5 (5-3) 
01/31 No. 1 Stanford L 83-80 10-6 (5-4) 
02/7 Oregon State W 81-74 11-6 (6-4) 
02/12 at Washington L 83-74 11-7 (6-5) 
02/14 at Washington State W 67-62 12-7 (7-5) 
02/19 No. 18 Arizona L 100-87 12-8 (7-6) 
02/21 Arizona State L 86-75 12-9 (7-7) 
02/26 at California L 85-81 12-10 (7-8) 
02/28 at No. 1 Stanford L 76-55 12-11 (7-9) 
03/4 USC W 75-70 13-11 (8-9) 
03/6 UCLA W 60-59 14-11 (9-9) CBS

Pac-10 Tourney 
03/11 at California W 87-82 15-11 (9-9) 
03/12 at No. 1 Stanford L 70-63 15-12 (9-9) 

This was also a horribly down year for the Pac-10. You mean to tell me in a down year for the Pac-10 that an All-American can't get his team to the NCAA tournament (even when the competiton is lacking). They went 3-6 on the road in the conference for goodness sake. 

I'm just not impressed.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Didn't stop the Ducks from losing big game after big game. They were 15-12 after all of this. That may look like trying but it sure isn't succeeding. Most of Jackson's efforts were in losing causes. I don't want to hear that he had no help because if that is so true, how come California and Washington were better than Oregon. They were both young teams that were picked (rightfully so below them). Shouldn't Jackson have been good enough to squeeze some more wins out of there.
> ...


Jeez, ASU couldnt beat the school of the blind

For those of you, there was sarcasm intended


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> well that is 6 words. I rest my case


What case? All I'm doing is trying to present my opinion that Jackson is not as bad as some make him out to be, that he's more than a shooter, and that he's a better athlete than most think.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> What case? All I'm doing is trying to present my opinion that Jackson is not as bad as some make him out to be, that he's more than a shooter, and that he's a better athlete than most think.


But youd still take the guy whose grill he busted. Says alot about your confidence in him going forward


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> i saw the Michigan games first half. He didnt do anything in the first half accept turn the ball over. This was against a very average michigan team. Though it was clear they focused on him. I went back and watched for a second with about 12 minutes to go to see if UM was still winning and by that point, their starters were pretty much done for the evening.


My post from earlier...



> Anyway I'll say the fascination here with guys like Luke Jackson is just ? There's a ton of talent in this draft so there are guys I'm going to be excited about before this kid, it's not that he sucks, although *last time I saw him was against Michigan in the NIT, (was he even better than Robinson Jr?), and was not impressed.*


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

HKF,

Why couldn't Chris Bosh get his team to the tournament? Basically the exact same team, minus Bosh plus Bynum, made it to the national championship game this year. What gives? Is Bosh that bad?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> But youd still take the guy whose grill he busted. Says alot about your confidence in him going forward


Come on, my man. If it were that black and white, this world would be a 50's rerun.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Come on, my man. If it were that black and white, this world would be a 50's rerun.


But at the end of the day mate, we agree. So we are we going to yell, scream, dig up every stat, debate, *****, fight and argue and we AGREE at the end of all of this? I know we have better things to do with our time. Your a great poster at a great school with the lovely ladies (I still want the pic of the Rusky). I, well am getting clobbered by the Japanese stock market. Next topic please!


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Now we know the NBA drafts on potential Veja. The reason why Bosh didn't win at Tech was because of the relative age (plus strength of the ACC). 

He was not going to win when Duke, Maryland, Wake and NC State are all better. He played in a much tougher league. Second, Bosh was a freshman. Not a senior. This is the reason why you usually can't get enamored with college upperclassmen because they usually flat line (the best are leaving school early, that is a fact). 

Like I said I like Jackson, but I am not betting on him being a great player. I think he will be serviceable.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Now we know the NBA drafts on potential Veja. The reason why Bosh didn't win at Tech was because of the relative age (plus strength of the ACC).
> 
> He was not going to win when Duke, Maryland, Wake and NC State are all better. He played in a much tougher league. Second, Bosh was a freshman. Not a senior. This is the reason why you usually can't get enamored with college upperclassmen because they usually flat line (the best are leaving school early, that is a fact).
> ...


My thoughts exactly


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Come on, my man. If it were that black and white, this world would be a 50's rerun.


I think it says a lot that you would take a guy over a guy who seems to have that guy's number...

I'm thinkingiff Iggy can get balled by Jackson, then there's a LOT of guys in the league that would ball Iggy.

You're playing both sides of the fence, you'd take Iggy at before Jackson, yet you're lobbying for what a great player Jackson is?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I think it says a lot that you would take a guy over a guy who seems to have that guy's number...
> ...


It is possible to like two players for different reasons even if one schools the other in a couple college games.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Didn't stop the Ducks from losing big game after big game. They were 15-12 after all of this. That may look like trying but it sure isn't succeeding. Most of Jackson's efforts were in losing causes.


So were the teams Jarvis Hayes Marcus Banks played on.



> They were both young teams that were picked (rightfully so below them).


Dude, preseason rankings mean jack s**t in college basketball. They're horrible indicators of future happenings -- across the board. Hell, the last five years Missouri has been picked to either win the Big XII or vie for the title, and in that time frame they've finished 6th, 6th, 6th, 5th and tied for 5th in conference. I place next to zero stock in preseason predictions.



> Shouldn't Jackson have been good enough to squeeze some more wins out of there.


Ask Bosh, Hayes or Banks the same question. 



> This was also a horribly down year for the Pac-10. You mean to tell me in a down year for the Pac-10 that an All-American can't get his team to the NCAA tournament (even when the competiton is lacking). They went 3-6 on the road in the conference for goodness sake.
> 
> I'm just not impressed.


Then why are you impressed with Banks? Banks didn't even play in a major conference. Aren't you being a bit inconsistent with your logic here?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> But at the end of the day mate, we agree. So we are we going to yell, scream, dig up every stat, debate, *****, fight and argue and we AGREE at the end of all of this? I know we have better things to do with our time. Your a great poster at a great school with the lovely ladies (I still want the pic of the Rusky). I, well am getting clobbered by the Japanese stock market. Next topic please!


The thing is, we don't agree. You think Jackson will be a below average player in the league, a one-dimensional defensive liability. I don't. I think he'll at least be an average player with a decent shot at being pretty good.

The Rusky pic is lost forever. I'm pissed.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Now we know the NBA drafts on potential Veja. The reason why Bosh didn't win at Tech was because of the relative age (plus strength of the ACC).


Good point. But what about Hayes and Banks?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> So were the teams Jarvis Hayes Marcus Banks played on.


If Jim Harrick wasn't caught cheating (I am glad he was), then Hayes would have been in the NCAA tournament for sure. 

As for Banks, if Brian Greene doesn't hit a flukely shot with 3 seconds left in the MWC championship game, he would have been in the NCAA tournament as well. It's not that he didn't work hard to get them close. They lost a champ. game basically at the buzzer.



> Then why are you impressed with Banks? Banks didn't even play in a major conference. Aren't you being a bit inconsistent with your logic here?


I didn't become impressed with Banks until I saw him play some NBA games. That's why I like having League Pass. I see all the games. He can play. Plus, he came from JUCO and is just now getting his game broken down into how a PG should really play. He has a lot of raw talent. When Jackson proves to me he can do it on the pro level, then I will say I am impressed with him too.

I take it you would take Jackson over Andre Emmett and Tony Allen as well correct?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I think it says a lot that you would take a guy over a guy who seems to have that guy's number...


Uh....what, are they going to play one-on-one all the time in the NBA or something?



> I'm thinkingiff Iggy can get balled by Jackson, then there's a LOT of guys in the league that would ball Iggy.


I think he's still got the potential, but he's raw. And I'd bet dollars to pesos his lack of anything resembling a perimeter jumper is really, really hurting his stock right now.



> You're playing both sides of the fence, you'd take Iggy at before Jackson, yet you're lobbying for what a great player Jackson is?


I swear, it's not that difficult to figure out.

1. I think Jackson is better than some here are giving him credit for being. I'm using stats vs. Iggy to illustrate my point here.
2. I think Iggy is slightly overrated, but in the long run I'd pick him over Jackson because of his high ceiling. Iggy's stats vs. Jackson are telling, but in the long run I think they're the exception rather than the rule (as well as testament to Jackson's ability, as stated above).

Why is this so hard to understand?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Good point. But what about Hayes and Banks?


Since you keep asking about Hayes...

Georgia was 19-8 last year and headed to the tournament. Unfortunately because of the Harrick nonsense, the university pulled the team out of the SEC tournament and NCAA tournament, so it's not that Hayes didn't step up and help his team win, he didn't have a chance for reasons out of his control.

Next....


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but when I look at Luke Jackson, I see a blend of Eric Piatkowski, Matt Bullard and Brian Skinner.

Flame on.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> As for Banks, if Brian Greene doesn't hit a flukely shot with 3 seconds left in the MWC championship game, he would have been in the NCAA tournament as well. It's not that he didn't work hard to get them close. They lost a champ. game basically at the buzzer.


If...if...if....isn't this the exact same thing you're criticizing Jackson for? Worked hard but didn't get the cigar? Like I said, I think your stance is inconsistent.



> I didn't become impressed with Banks until I saw him play some NBA games. That's why I like having League Pass. I see all the games. He can play. Plus, he came from JUCO and is just now getting his game broken down into how a PG should really play. He has a lot of raw talent. When Jackson proves to me he can do it on the pro level, then I will say I am impressed with him too.


That's great, but it's not relevant to why you're censuring Jackson on the college level.



> I take it you would take Jackson over Andre Emmett and Tony Allen as well correct?


Yes. Emmett has no range, is limited defensively (even under Knight) and is undersized (though he has good bulk). Tony Allen is a tweener and has very limited range. I'd take Kirk Snyder over Luke Jackson, though. I think Snyder's gonna surprise a lot of people.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Next....


Banks? Isn't he next?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Look you see something great in him and that's fine. But I don't. This is the NBA and I see a role player. I am not expecting him to come in and be better than a nice little cog. I think you can get guys comparable to him in the draft w/o trading down out of a future stud to get him. 

I would stand pat and see if he falls to 32. If not pick up someone else.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> The thing is, we don't agree. You think Jackson will be a below average player in the league, a one-dimensional defensive liability. I don't. I think he'll at least be an average player with a decent shot at being pretty good.
> ...


damnit, I want the the Ruskie pick

I have called him a one trick pony. In the NBA, I stick by that. But I have never said he would "below average" I said he would be adequate coming off the bench for a team that plays at a good pace


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Look you see something great in him and that's fine.


I don't see something "great" in him. I see something "good" in him. Something a bit more than a 10-15 mpg shooter.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't see something "great" in him. I see something "good" in him. Something a bit more than a 10-15 mpg shooter.


so why bother? Why waste the energy if the kid is just mearly good?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> Don't let me stop you from posting. You bring too much to this board for that. I have no issue with you. I do with arenas but that should not affect me and you. We just disagree on players a lot.


Seriously Bas, show some class, I haven't said one thing to you and yet you're still dragging my name into posts/threads.

You're not the first, but this is getting ridiculous.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> so why bother? Why waste the energy if the kid is just mearly good?


Why waste what energy? I'm simply defending what I think is a bad rap against the kid.

If you're talking about an NBA team wasting resources on him, I'd note that the kid's not gonna be a lottery pick. He's a late first- mid-second round guy. And if he falls to the second round, he might be the steal of the draft.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

You have been better as of late I admit. I thank you for that. Sorry for mentioning your name I was just trying to get across to rlucas that I was not mad at him. I have class thank you very much.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Why waste what energy? I'm simply defending what I think is a bad rap against the kid.
> ...


Again, so your kind of came at me like a house on fire, when you agreed with me all along. VV, I love debating with you mate. But this is a waste of energy if we actually agree that he is late first - second round pick, and agree that he might be good value there. So why all the hullabaloo?


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Again, so your kind of came at me like a house on fire, when you agreed with me all along. VV, I love debating with you mate. But this is a waste of energy if we actually agree that he is late first - second round pick, and agree that he might be good value there. So why all the hullabaloo?


You're right. Let's quit while we're still standing. I'm a little fiesty today, as I just took my last final exam this morning.

Good debate, as usual.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> You're right. Let's quit while we're still standing. I'm a little fiesty today, as I just took my last final exam this morning.
> ...


Congrats on your last test. I hope it went well. Are you going to be around frequently this summer? I am sure we can fight about something. In fact I always welcome a clean debate with you. But this time, lets disagree on something before you tear my head off!


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Yeah, I should be around a lot this summer. Get ready!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Yeah, I should be around a lot this summer. Get ready!


Alright. I have some controversial opinions so we will have some dandies. I am looking forward to it. Around draft time, id be shocked if you and I arent locking horns on an almost daily basis


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Alright. I have some controversial opinions so we will have some dandies. I am looking forward to it. Around draft time, id be shocked if you and I arent locking horns on an almost daily basis


I'm planning on it. It'll be fun.


----------

