Bucks @ Suns game thread 11-22-17

[Mainstreet]

I think everyone is happy if the Suns develop their youth. The wins and losses take care of themselves. In addition the Suns have PG woes, which if not resolved, makes winning all the harder. All I want is to root for the Suns to play their best.

 

[Hoop Head]

Nash would be a great hire but since the FO added James Jones this offseason I doubt they add a FO name of any significance. A hiring might help though somewhere in the organization. I wish they'd hire an Assistant Coach to put in charge of our bigs.

 

[Mainstreet]

Nash would be a great hire but since the FO added James Jones this offseason I doubt they add a FO name of any significance. A hiring might help though somewhere in the organization. I wish they'd hire an Assistant Coach to put in charge of our bigs.

Totally agree.

Nash would be a huge hire if he ever returned to the Suns.

Put him in charge of player development, the draft or create an assistant GM position where he can impact the team.

Or better yet, he could head a group that buys the Suns.

Suns fans need someone they can trust and relate too within the organization.

 

[3rdside]

Hmm, I'm not an expert of course, but Tatum looked like about as pure a SF as you can get.

Pure is the word.

As for Jackson, I thought the buzz was that he could guard multiple positions -- not that there's that much difference between guarding a SF versus a SG -- so maybe that's where that comes from. In any case, it was clear that Jackson didn't have the bulk or footwork to be a PF on offense, so I guess if you were going to up-size one of them, it would have to be Tatum.

No question (but there's no choice really, as it turns out).

I agree that it's too soon to call Jackson a bust. Similarly, if Tatum is already close to his ceiling, he won't ever make an All-Star team.

Have you seen him play? I'd bet he goes on to be a 25ppg guy.

But a big part of the narrative before the draft was that Jackson was "more athletic," and the conventional wisdom seems to be, if two players are comparable, go with the more athletic one.

I thought these guys were comparable dimensions wise (height, wing span) and they're not - Jackson is a short 6'8", Tatum isn't, which might negate the athletic difference but on that point Tatum has always looked much smoother in his play and therefore should be considered more naturally athletic... Unless you mean more athletic like 'cooler dunks' (which seems to be a strange barometer for many), then Jackson might win out there.

I expect that more seasoned talent evaluators don't fall for that trap. It's like the old saying of "you can't teach size," and I understand where it's coming from. But NBA basketball, as a team sport, in fact requires a very high skill level. Guys who are tall and who can run and jump don't necessarily project as good NBA players. There's a lot more to it than that.

On length and natural athleticism alone then Tatum's your guy - he is a long, smooth, pure scorer - but Jackson's assist numbers are the more to it than that you're referring to. Not that we're seeing much sign of those so far but career is young.

 

[3rdside]

*25ppg guy but with Haywood and Brown there, maybe that path is a little less clear.

 

[elindholm]

Tatum has always looked much smoother in his play and therefore should be considered more naturally athletic

I agree, and made that very point leading up to the draft. I said that balance is also a kind of athleticism and that Tatum's fluidity indicated excellent balance. What I'm trying to do now is hypothesize why the consensus was that Jackson was a better prospect.

As for the assists, their single years of college produced 3.0 per game for Jackson and 2.1 for Tatum. I don't remember that being a big part of the discussion. Without watching footage, I'd be reluctant to consider that a significant difference -- it could be the result of teammates or (team) style of play. In particular, I'd guess that Jackson got most of his assists in the fast break, by giving the ball up to a teammate for the finish. He's obviously not a playmaker for others and that was evident in the scouting report.

 

[elindholm]

In the "Big Board 7.0 Chad Ford" thread, post #33:

I think one problem is that people think "athleticism" means jumping ability, speed, strength, and not much else. But balance is also a big element of athleticism, and I think it's just as good a predictor for whether someone will succeed. You can say that Nash or Harden "lack athleticism," but their balance is exceptional. I suspect that the "smoothness" we all see in Tatum is due to superior balance.

 

[3rdside]

I agree, and made that very point leading up to the draft. I said that balance is also a kind of athleticism and that Tatum's fluidity indicated excellent balance. What I'm trying to do now is hypothesize why the consensus was that Jackson was a better prospect.

As for the assists, their single years of college produced 3.0 per game for Jackson and 2.1 for Tatum. I don't remember that being a big part of the discussion. Without watching footage, I'd be reluctant to consider that a significant difference -- it could be the result of teammates or (team) style of play. In particular, I'd guess that Jackson got most of his assists in the fast break, by giving the ball up to a teammate for the finish. He's obviously not a playmaker for others and that was evident in the scouting report.

Have to say that when i re-checked out Jackson’s college stats today, I was trying to find a bigger assist number than just 3; like a per 36 5 or something but didn’t see it. Which is weird because I had in my mind that Jackson was projecting as an 18, 10 and 5 sort of guy, but there’s really not much that would suggest this likely (the 5 assists part at least).

So I’m wondering why I thought this.

Tying my question in with your question about jackson being the considered the consensus better player - he clearly was, even forecast to go number 1 in some circles - then maybe we all got swept up in the hype?

The big hair, the defensive attributes and (maybe the most the most defining) the attitude.

I know SF88 was strongly anti Tatum for some reason so maybe that tied into things around here as well.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[3rdside]

In the "Big Board 7.0 Chad Ford" thread, post #33:

Balance, braking (https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....dens-secret-talent-is-slowing-down-1486667420), ability to turn on a dime etc - it’s all athleticism, just not as obvious as things like jumping as you say.

And you don’t always have to look prettier doing athletic things but it’s not the worst way to assess someone’s ability at them, and it’s why Jackson’s unorthodox, slightly jerky, style and shortish frame (for a 3 anyway) make me a little nervous (but hardly nervous enough to think he’s anywhere near a bust yet)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elindholm]

I know SF88 was strongly anti Tatum for some reason so maybe that tied into things around here as well.

I won't name names, but at least one person on this board was vehemently anti-Duke, insisting that anyone from Duke was automatically overrated and therefore should be avoided.

No one was seriously considering Jackson for #1. You have to remember that, once the pecking order at the top is set, draft sites and "analysts" have to do something else to generate page loads. So they make up some nonsense just to get attention, but it's all a stunt.

Whether Ainge would really have taken Tatum had the Celtics stayed at #1, who knows.

 

[Cheesebeef]

just saw that turnaround buzzer beater from Book. *******, that kid is good. Need to get more ELITE talent to pair with him and not sure there's anyone currently on the team that approaches that level, even Jackson who I LOVED during the draft.

 

[Finito]

Jackson reminds me a lot of a young Shawn Marion he's just to raw to get his own shot, he's going to get most of his points on the break and put backs.

The difference is Marion played in a scheme that suited him and he had a guy in Nash that could find him on the break and could find him cutting and could put him in position to succeed. You were worried about so many guys on that team the defense couldn't just collapse and the lane was wide open

Jackson doesn't have any of that. He's not a guy at this stage that's going to create he's a guy who's gonna finish and we don't have anyone that can put him in that position.

I bet if you took him and put him on Houston he would look spectacular.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Jackson reminds me a lot of a young Shawn Marion he's just to raw to get his own shot, he's going to get most of his points on the break and put backs.

The difference is Marion played in a scheme that suited him and he had a guy in Nash that could find him on the break and could find him cutting and could put him in position to succeed. You were worried about so many guys on that team the defense couldn't just collapse and the lane was wide open

Jackson doesn't have any of that. He's not a guy at this stage that's going to create he's a guy who's gonna finish and we don't have anyone that can put him in that position.

I bet if you took him and put him on Houston he would look spectacular.

Marion was a year older than Jackson when drafted, and had several years more experience at the college level.

 

[3rdside]

I won't name names, but at least one person on this board was vehemently anti-Duke, insisting that anyone from Duke was automatically overrated and therefore should be avoided.

No one was seriously considering Jackson for #1. You have to remember that, once the pecking order at the top is set, draft sites and "analysts" have to do something else to generate page loads. So they make up some nonsense just to get attention, but it's all a stunt.

Whether Ainge would really have taken Tatum had the Celtics stayed at #1, who knows.

While only an article about Jackson going 1st to Boston, it’s sounds pretty convincing (I vaguely remember reading this at draft time):

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/synd...g-josh-jackson-with-no-1-overal-pick.amp.html


Articles about Jackson being a ‘gifted’ passer:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....raft-2017-lakers-76ers-defense-passing-finals


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.si...osh-jackson-celtics-76ers-kansas-jayson-tatum

So I wasn’t being entirely deluded about his play making which is good to know.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[3rdside]

Jackson reminds me a lot of a young Shawn Marion he's just to raw to get his own shot, he's going to get most of his points on the break and put backs.

The difference is Marion played in a scheme that suited him and he had a guy in Nash that could find him on the break and could find him cutting and could put him in position to succeed. You were worried about so many guys on that team the defense couldn't just collapse and the lane was wide open

Jackson doesn't have any of that. He's not a guy at this stage that's going to create he's a guy who's gonna finish and we don't have anyone that can put him in that position.

I bet if you took him and put him on Houston he would look spectacular.

Don’t know about this - Jackson looks like he likes to dribble a lot more than Marion’s dirt work routine, and their wingspans are miles apart (Marion was a wingspan freak, Jackson’s isn’t) ...they’re both raw but then so are most nba rookies.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JCSunsfan]

Don’t know about this - Jackson looks like he likes to dribble a lot more than Marion’s dirt work routine, and their wingspans are miles apart (Marion was a wingspan freak, Jackson’s isn’t) ...they’re both raw but then so are most nba rookies.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmmm. I don't remember Marion have exceptional wingspan. He had those high shoulders though. I might be wrong about the wingspan. Does anyone have a source?

 

[Cheesebeef]

Hmmm. I don't remember Marion have exceptional wingspan. He had those high shoulders though. I might be wrong about the wingspan. Does anyone have a source?

I remember him having a centers wing-span that made many people here erroneously claim he could give Dirk fits.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Don’t know about this - Jackson looks like he likes to dribble a lot more than Marion’s dirt work routine, and their wingspans are miles apart (Marion was a wingspan freak, Jackson’s isn’t) ...they’re both raw but then so are most nba rookies.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. I think Jackson’s handles are much better than Marion’s we’re coming out of college... or at any other time of his career for that measure.

 

[Raze]

Have to say that when i re-checked out Jackson’s college stats today, I was trying to find a bigger assist number than just 3; like a per 36 5 or something but didn’t see it. Which is weird because I had in my mind that Jackson was projecting as an 18, 10 and 5 sort of guy, but there’s really not much that would suggest this likely (the 5 assists part at least).

So I’m wondering why I thought this.

Tying my question in with your question about jackson being the considered the consensus better player - he clearly was, even forecast to go number 1 in some circles - then maybe we all got swept up in the hype?

The big hair, the defensive attributes and (maybe the most the most defining) the attitude.

I know SF88 was strongly anti Tatum for some reason so maybe that tied into things around here as well.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jackson's passing skills are natural, although his numbers don't remotely reflect that. He actually flashes high IQ passes on certain plays. That is, when he's not dribbling off his leg in the half court set. I'm not concerned in the least. He's going to get better with time. We are witnessing the floor of this guy right now. Plus the offense he's in isn't placing him in a good position to be successful.

While I don't think Tatum is quite at his ceiling I would argue it's close. And the guy only plays 50% of his minutes, IOW he doesn't play D. I'll admit I haven't watched much of his play this year, but what I did see looks an awful lot like his "D" at Duke. Which is to say, non existent.

Jackson isn't showing superior defensive prowess like I had thought he would. However, he is showing a tenacity to go after guys and the athleticism to be great at it. In 3 years, he could be a top defender. (Tatum will never be that. He might never be average.)

 

[Mainstreet]

It looks like Booker will get his money back reportedly because one technical foul was a mistake.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[95pro]

Wrong thread maybe...but 6K for a T is nothing for these guys.