# Luke workout report



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Here is a report off draftcity.com about Luke Jackson working out with Snyder and J.R. Smith.

draftcity report 

I don't think there is any way Luke is around at 23. A shooter with ball movement skills would be nice. Should we be disappointed if Blazers take him at 13? I would be more disappointed if they took J.R. Smith at 13 (his jumper is going to get snuffed in the NBA).


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

You beat me to it. It's also about Kirk Snyder.

Guess what? (Hap will like this Jackson's vertical blew away the "incredibly athletic" Snyder. But Snyder also comes off looking good in this report.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Wow great report. Thanks for the link.

Sounds like Snyder and Jackson both looked very good. Smith sounds like he's either been incredibly overrated, he's sandbagging it, or he's worn down. 

I can understand being physically dominated by his opponents in the workouts (Jackson is four years older than Smith, and Snyder's 2.5 years older) but the drills shouldn't really affect his vertical. Unless they allowed defense during the jump 

Ed O.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Thanks REEP... great report, it makes me like us picking Jackson more and more.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

J.R. Smith really comes off looking like a tool in this report. Did you catch the quotes at the bottom?



> “I would compare my game to Vince Carter. We both have a lot of athletic ability. We both like to dunk, shoot the ball, and have intensity.”
> 
> (On draft prospects)
> “I think I’m a ten out of ten, so I’m going to get drafted.”


So that's why they say he's ...confident.


----------



## Terrible (Jan 3, 2003)

What this team needs more than anything is some high IQ players that can move with and without the ball. If Luke can do that and bring some vision to this team than I'm all for it. We don't have the smartest team in the world right now, maybe a guy who actually went to college could help.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> What this team needs more than anything is some high IQ players that can move with and without the ball. If Luke can do that and bring some vision to this team than I'm all for it. We don't have the smartest team in the world right now, maybe a guy who actually went to college could help.


I AGREE!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

I'm still not convinced Luke will amount to much in the league.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Reep</b>!
> 
> I don't think there is any way Luke is around at 23. A shooter with ball movement skills would be nice. Should we be disappointed if Blazers take him at 13?


I've heard nothing but good things about him, and those good things are really piling up. I seriously doubt he's left for your second pick. If he's your guy, you'd almost certainly need to grab him at 13. That isn't so bad though -- he seems to fall in the 15-18 range in a lot of mocks, so picking him a few spots earlier isn't that big of a deal.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> You beat me to it. It's also about Kirk Snyder.
> 
> Guess what? (Hap will like this Jackson's vertical blew away the "incredibly athletic" Snyder. But Snyder also comes off looking good in this report.


I like it only in the sense the people who think Jackson was not athletic and didn't have much jumping ability, are probably wrong. Not necessarily that he can jump.

Altho, I know what you meant. I think ( therefore I am)? (how's that for dropping a reference to Rene Descartes?)


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Luke thinks he will go anywhere between 8 and 18. No way I think he will be there at 23.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I think he will be a good player in the NBA, but no way in hell would I take him at 13. 

If he was at 23, I would love to get him. 


But back to why I would not take him at 13...

Jackson is a SG. We are in desperate need of a SG right now, and it seems we will trade SAR for one. If we do this, where does Jackson fit in at SG in the future? Is he really going 2 be content playing only a few minutes a game at SG. 

Now for SF. Miles is our SF. He is our future, and it is his job to loose. I believe he will come into form next year, and prove himself. Where does Luke fit in over the next few years if Miles(a 22 year old), is playing 35 or so minutes at SF.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

I'd be cool with selecting Jackson with #13, assuming an even more gifted player doesn't slip down in the draft or a star SG isn't attainable.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ThatBlazerGuy</b>!
> Now for SF. Miles is our SF. He is our future, and it is his job to loose.


While I was happy to get Miles and happy to see his accomplishments when we got him. I am not so sure I would bet the farm on him being the future of our team. He improved in many areas and his shot was not so bad after all. If we got Jackson he might end up in a year or two being our SF if Miles bolts as a RFA this year, or he hits the ceiling on improving.

I am not convinced Miles will continue to improve. I hope he does, I certainly do. He is a very exciting athletic player to watch.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> 
> I am not convinced Miles will continue to improve. I hope he does, I certainly do. He is a very exciting athletic player to watch.


I worry about this too. I understand the 4 year thing with high schoolers, but I don't know if Darius will be much better, statistically, next year than he was this year.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> I worry about this too. I understand the 4 year thing with high schoolers, but I don't know if Darius will be much better, statistically, next year than he was this year.


Not to risk derailing the thread too much, but I think that anyone who DOESN'T think this is a strong possibility hasn't been paying much attention to Miles over his career. Every season his team seems to think he's on the verge of exploding the next year, and every year he's disappointed by not improving.

Hopefully he HAS turned a corner, but I'm not convinced just yet. Of course, he's pretty decent as he is now and Portland's already come out pretty well in the McInnis deal...

Ed O.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

*Take Jackson at 13*

Screw it, I say take Jackson at 13! He's not going to be there at 23 (JR Smith will - and I think we should pass on him even there) and he may not even be there at 13. I think this year there will be a premium on players who can play. I think Nelson AND Jackson will go higher than they are currently projected.

Re: where will Jackson play? Who cares! Make him a 6th man. He's a "swingman" - just throw him out there and ask him to hit shots or keep the ball moving. Not to compare him with Kirilenko, but that's a player who moves around - he was started with Harpring and he was presumably the PF. But everyone thinks of him as a SF, only sometimes he can play SG on defence. I don't think we should get stuck on categorizing.

What was Dan Majerle? He didn't have a position in his first couple of seasons. He only became a full-time SG after the Barkley trade.

(Caveat: if Livingston, Childress or even Deng somehow slips, then disregard the above.)


----------



## prasutagus (Jan 22, 2003)

Take Jackson at 13! The guy will be good. 

And I disagree with any argument that he shouldn't be drafted because of "position needs" Who cares? If the guy can play, then you play him. You don't worry about "SF" or "SG". The coaches will find a place to play him if he gets the job done.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Its going to be interesting to see if say....

We pick.... Livingston (or ?) at 13

and Luke is projected to go 15-18, and possibly Portland wants him badly

Will we trade our #23 and a player to move up to get Luke?


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Terrible</b>!
> What this team needs more than anything is some high IQ players that can move with and without the ball. If Luke can do that and bring some vision to this team than I'm all for it. We don't have the smartest team in the world right now, maybe a guy who actually went to college could help.


Amen. The last thing we need is another mentally challenged "great athlete." 

Luke would give us something we don't have right now. He's also the hometown kid giving the fans a reason to cheer again. Anything we can do to pump up the dead Rose Garden crowd, which will lead to more wins, is something I'm all for.


----------



## RollOutPnoy (Jan 22, 2003)

*Is Luke Jackson Really Athletic?*

When Atlanta worked out Oregon's Luke Jackson, Kirk Snyder of the University of Nevada, Morehead State's Ricky Minard and high school standout J.R. Smith, they said Luke Jackson had the highest vertical? Is that correct? I know for a fact that J.R. Smith has great hops from watching some of his game tapes.

Luke Jackson's Workout For The Hawks


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

I think that Jackson would be a great addition to increase Portland's basketball IQ. He is a safe draft pick IMO. Maybe that is why he is increasing his stock pre-draft! :yes:


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

What all of you seem to be missing out of this article, is that Kirk Snyder was the best player in the workout (according to this report). The same 6'6 Kirk Snyder who plays SG. 

BTW, The "promise" to Snyder seems to be a bogus one.



> ESPN Insider reported this week multiple times that the word from international scouts in Treviso is that Snyder has a guarantee in place from Portland to draft him at 13. This is because Snyder’s agent reportedly was telling people that he got a guarantee from a team in the lottery.
> 
> There are two problems with this theory.
> 
> ...


I think a lot of you are going to be dissapointed when POR doesn't select Luke Jackson.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Kmurph, I read that article and nowhere did I see it say Snyder was the best player at the workout. If that is how you read it... that would be your opinion. 

In fact is does say



> Jackson will likely get taken before Snyder in the teens, due to his more complete offensive game.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Paxil</b>!
> Kmurph, I read that article and nowhere did I see it say Snyder was the best player at the workout. If that is how you read it... that would be your opinion.


It specifically says this:



> Here are our rankings based on this workout:
> 
> 1. Kirk Snyder
> 2. Luke Jackson
> ...


Ed O.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Well*



> Originally posted by <b>texan</b>!
> I'm still not convinced Luke will amount to much in the league.


Well for that matter, I am not convinced that even the #1 pick will amount to much in the league *cough cough Michael Olowakandi cough cough*). No player is a sure fire pick until they back up the goods. The question I think most people are answering here is: Are we willing to take a risk on these players with our draft pick. I think that the consensus is Yes. Both Kirk Snyder and Luke Jackson are worthy of our draft picks, and if they don't work out, well, that's basketball.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I stand (ok I am sitting) corrected Ed. I never saw that. Strange they would say Luke would be picked higher and then rank Kirk ahead of him.

I have a hard time with a shooting guard that has a weakness of shooting. Can you say Derek Anderson?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Paxil</b>!
> I stand (ok I am sitting) corrected Ed. I never saw that. Strange they would say Luke would be picked higher and then rank Kirk ahead of him.


I agree, and it wasn't that hard to miss; I knew it was in there, but when I re-scanned the page I had trouble finding it (I think it's because they wrapped around an image with the text and it gets lost a bit).



> I have a hard time with a shooting guard that has a weakness of shooting. Can you say Derek Anderson?


I hear you... I think that Snyder's not a bad shooter, but it's the weakest part of his game. Considering how well he reportedly does some other things, if the staff thinks his shot will improve he wouldn't be a bad pick. I think #13 is too high for him, though, just like I do with Jackson.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> I think #13 is too high for him, though, just like I do with Jackson.


But do you think it is too high for Telfair Ed? Not really asking to debate, just to get your opinion.

If so, who would you like to see POR take, if not Jackson, Snyder or Telfair?

BTW, nice sig, funny thing is I had never seen the office before, and I saw that exact episode last night. It was pretty funny.


----------



## prasutagus (Jan 22, 2003)

Its fun to read these reports and see how the draftees are doing, but be careful not to put too much emphasis on them. A few ball handling drills, some shooting drills, a jumping competion, and some 2-on-2 does not really tell you that much about how good a guy will be. IMO the way the players have performed in true 5-on-5 game situations is much more telling. Luke Jackson and Kirk Snyder have both proven themselves in those situations. I'd rather have Jackson, but I would be happy with either of those talented players at #13.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> But do you think it is too high for Telfair Ed? Not really asking to debate, just to get your opinion.


I think that Telfair at #13 is a bit of a reach, but I think that since Telfair's a potential star, reaching for him would be better than Jackson or Snyder. It would be swinging for the fences, but at our spot I'd rather have us gamble and maybe come up big than take a safe pick.



> If so, who would you like to see POR take, if not Jackson, Snyder or Telfair?


It's hard to say, since I don't know who will be there  I listed my "big 13" a couple of weeks ago, and I didn't have any of those three guys there, so I think we can do better (of course, if Andriuskevicius and others drop out, maybe my big 13 dwindles a bit more...)



> BTW, nice sig, funny thing is I had never seen the office before, and I saw that exact episode last night. It was pretty funny.


I think the Simon scene is one of the best, and certainly one of the best pain/humor scenes (most of the funniest in the show happen to be the most painful...)

Ed O.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Swing for the fence or take the safe pick? Hmmmmmm

So was Travis Outlaw a foul ball?


I don't know, I would like to see Portland raise their basketball IQ and that is why I wouldn't mind a player like Jackson, even at 13 and being a safe pick. The last few drafts Portland hasn't really got the ball out of the infield, have they? :whoknows:


----------

