Poll

Jackson or Tatum?

Tatum
23 (45.1%)
Jackson
28 (54.9%)

Total Members Voted: 51

Author Topic: Jackson or Tatum: a decision I'm glad I don't have to make  (Read 8686 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Jackson or Tatum: a decision I'm glad I don't have to make
« Reply #45 on: May 01, 2017, 07:44:07 PM »

Offline footey

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15965
  • Tommy Points: 1833
We will get to work out both of them. That may be the deciding factor.

Re: Jackson or Tatum: a decision I'm glad I don't have to make
« Reply #46 on: May 03, 2017, 12:17:01 AM »

Offline droopdog7

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6970
  • Tommy Points: 466
We have some tough energy types.  What we aside from IT is a scorer.  That's why I take Tatum.  Add that he's younger than it's becoming an easy decision for me.

Re: Jackson or Tatum: a decision I'm glad I don't have to make
« Reply #47 on: May 03, 2017, 12:27:46 AM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
No brainer for me - Tatum by a mile.

He is a much more complete player (can handle the ball, pass the ball, post up, drive, shoot the three, defend, rebound, etc), a more talented scorer, and he's only 19 years old with excellent intangibles (IQ, attitude, work ethic, etc).

His upside is through the roof.

By comparison Jackson is just another 6'8" wing with a limited offensive game who looks primed to become yet another Michael-Kidd Gilchrist / Tyreke Evans type of guy.  I'm sure he'll be a solid player, but nothing about his game screams "star" or "game changer" to me.

Tatum on the other hand has ridiculous potential, and IMHO he is the second best prospect in this draft.

Re: Jackson or Tatum: a decision I'm glad I don't have to make
« Reply #48 on: May 03, 2017, 12:53:42 AM »

Offline jakeopp

  • Joe Mazzulla
  • Posts: 138
  • Tommy Points: 12
No brainer for me - Tatum by a mile.

He is a much more complete player (can handle the ball, pass the ball, post up, drive, shoot the three, defend, rebound, etc), a more talented scorer, and he's only 19 years old with excellent intangibles (IQ, attitude, work ethic, etc).

His upside is through the roof.

By comparison Jackson is just another 6'8" wing with a limited offensive game who looks primed to become yet another Michael-Kidd Gilchrist / Tyreke Evans type of guy.  I'm sure he'll be a solid player, but nothing about his game screams "star" or "game changer" to me.

Tatum on the other hand has ridiculous potential, and IMHO he is the second best prospect in this draft.

Jackson is easily a more well-rounded player based off of what I've seen.

- Slightly better rebounder in college.
- Far superior passer
- Much better defender
- Better ball handler based off of what i've seen (has point-forward potential IMO)
- Much better athlete, Tatum is just average in this area.

Tatum's advantages are
- shooting (big advantage)
- isolation scoring ability
- younger age
- no off-court concerns
- Frame that could transition better to playing small-ball PF, if he packs on some muscle.



Re: Jackson or Tatum: a decision I'm glad I don't have to make
« Reply #49 on: May 03, 2017, 01:00:04 AM »

Offline CelticsElite

  • NCE
  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10774
  • Tommy Points: 789
No brainer for me - Tatum by a mile.

He is a much more complete player (can handle the ball, pass the ball, post up, drive, shoot the three, defend, rebound, etc), a more talented scorer, and he's only 19 years old with excellent intangibles (IQ, attitude, work ethic, etc).

His upside is through the roof.

By comparison Jackson is just another 6'8" wing with a limited offensive game who looks primed to become yet another Michael-Kidd Gilchrist / Tyreke Evans type of guy.  I'm sure he'll be a solid player, but nothing about his game screams "star" or "game changer" to me.

Tatum on the other hand has ridiculous potential, and IMHO he is the second best prospect in this draft.
100% agreed. Jackson reminds me of a worse version of mkg or evans

Re: Jackson or Tatum: a decision I'm glad I don't have to make
« Reply #50 on: May 03, 2017, 01:10:49 AM »

Offline footey

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15965
  • Tommy Points: 1833
No brainer for me - Tatum by a mile.

He is a much more complete player (can handle the ball, pass the ball, post up, drive, shoot the three, defend, rebound, etc), a more talented scorer, and he's only 19 years old with excellent intangibles (IQ, attitude, work ethic, etc).

His upside is through the roof.

By comparison Jackson is just another 6'8" wing with a limited offensive game who looks primed to become yet another Michael-Kidd Gilchrist / Tyreke Evans type of guy.  I'm sure he'll be a solid player, but nothing about his game screams "star" or "game changer" to me.

Tatum on the other hand has ridiculous potential, and IMHO he is the second best prospect in this draft.

Your analysis of Jackson reads like someone who has never watched him play.

Re: Jackson or Tatum: a decision I'm glad I don't have to make
« Reply #51 on: May 03, 2017, 12:42:33 PM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
No brainer for me - Tatum by a mile.

He is a much more complete player (can handle the ball, pass the ball, post up, drive, shoot the three, defend, rebound, etc), a more talented scorer, and he's only 19 years old with excellent intangibles (IQ, attitude, work ethic, etc).

His upside is through the roof.

By comparison Jackson is just another 6'8" wing with a limited offensive game who looks primed to become yet another Michael-Kidd Gilchrist / Tyreke Evans type of guy.  I'm sure he'll be a solid player, but nothing about his game screams "star" or "game changer" to me.

Tatum on the other hand has ridiculous potential, and IMHO he is the second best prospect in this draft.

Your analysis of Jackson reads like someone who has never watched him play.

I've watched him play. He looks like he will be a very good complimentary player.

I see Jackson as a guy who will be capable of scoring, but mostly as a complimentary scorer - making shots off assists from other players (much like Bradley, or Crowder).  I don't see him as the type of guy who will be able to create his own offence or carry a team.

Tatum on the other hand, I do see as that type of guy.  He is very capable of scoring in isolation, and that means he should be capable of creating his own shot - and that's a skill you need if you want to be a go-to scorer on an NBA team - which is, I think, something this Boston team could really use. 

Basically the way I see it is Jackson is more of a Aaron Gordon type, while Tatum is more of a Paul George type.  Both are long, athletic, skilled two-way players.  The key difference is that one of them is a very good shot creator, while the other is not so much.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2017, 12:55:17 PM by crimson_stallion »

Re: Jackson or Tatum: a decision I'm glad I don't have to make
« Reply #52 on: May 03, 2017, 01:00:47 PM »

Offline droopdog7

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6970
  • Tommy Points: 466
No brainer for me - Tatum by a mile.

He is a much more complete player (can handle the ball, pass the ball, post up, drive, shoot the three, defend, rebound, etc), a more talented scorer, and he's only 19 years old with excellent intangibles (IQ, attitude, work ethic, etc).

His upside is through the roof.

By comparison Jackson is just another 6'8" wing with a limited offensive game who looks primed to become yet another Michael-Kidd Gilchrist / Tyreke Evans type of guy.  I'm sure he'll be a solid player, but nothing about his game screams "star" or "game changer" to me.

Tatum on the other hand has ridiculous potential, and IMHO he is the second best prospect in this draft.

Your analysis of Jackson reads like someone who has never watched him play.

I've watched him play. He looks like he will be a very good complimentary player.

I see Jackson as a guy who will be capable of scoring, but mostly as a complimentary scorer - making shots off assists from other players (much like Bradley, or Crowder).  I don't see him as the type of guy who will be able to create his own offence or carry a team.

Tatum on the other hand, I do see as that type of guy.  He is very capable of scoring in isolation, and that means he should be capable of creating his own shot - and that's a skill you need if you want to be a go-to scorer on an NBA team - which is, I think, something this Boston team could really use. 

Basically the way I see it is Jackson is more of a Aaron Gordon type, while Tatum is more of a Paul George type.  Both are long, athletic, skilled two-way players.  The key difference is that one of them is a very good shot creator, while the other is not so much.
Thought you were going to say Paul Pierce, whom I think it actually a good comp for Tatum.

Re: Jackson or Tatum: a decision I'm glad I don't have to make
« Reply #53 on: May 03, 2017, 01:04:54 PM »

Offline liam

  • NCE
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43394
  • Tommy Points: 3150
My main reason for going for Jackson over Tatum is that I feel that Jackson is the better two way player. Jackson is a very good defender and could be great. Tatum looks a little lost on defense.

Re: Jackson or Tatum: a decision I'm glad I don't have to make
« Reply #54 on: May 03, 2017, 01:20:51 PM »

Offline Tr1boy

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27260
  • Tommy Points: 867
We have some tough energy types.  What we aside from IT is a scorer.  That's why I take Tatum.  Add that he's younger than it's becoming an easy decision for me.

Can Tatum raise his intensity to another level? 

Reading at times he shies away from contact ... If this is true..he wont fit in well with this group/system

Basically if he is another Otto Porter he is not a good fit

This said..you also cant keep drafting marcus smart like swiss army knife type of talents ...

Maybe Danny skips on both ...if he loses Fultz...and trades down for pf/c with high ceiling like Zach Collins

Re: Jackson or Tatum: a decision I'm glad I don't have to make
« Reply #55 on: May 03, 2017, 04:56:06 PM »

Offline jakeopp

  • Joe Mazzulla
  • Posts: 138
  • Tommy Points: 12
We have some tough energy types.  What we aside from IT is a scorer.  That's why I take Tatum.  Add that he's younger than it's becoming an easy decision for me.

Can Tatum raise his intensity to another level? 

Reading at times he shies away from contact ... If this is true..he wont fit in well with this group/system

Basically if he is another Otto Porter he is not a good fit

This said..you also cant keep drafting marcus smart like swiss army knife type of talents ...

Maybe Danny skips on both ...if he loses Fultz...and trades down for pf/c with high ceiling like Zach Collins

That would be a sad end to our dreams of drafting a future star...

Jackson seems exactly like a Danny Ainge pick. If he misses both Fultz/Jackson, there's always Smith/Fox/Monk/Isaac if he's avoiding Tatum & Ball.

Re: Jackson or Tatum: a decision I'm glad I don't have to make
« Reply #56 on: May 03, 2017, 10:18:27 PM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
No brainer for me - Tatum by a mile.

He is a much more complete player (can handle the ball, pass the ball, post up, drive, shoot the three, defend, rebound, etc), a more talented scorer, and he's only 19 years old with excellent intangibles (IQ, attitude, work ethic, etc).

His upside is through the roof.

By comparison Jackson is just another 6'8" wing with a limited offensive game who looks primed to become yet another Michael-Kidd Gilchrist / Tyreke Evans type of guy.  I'm sure he'll be a solid player, but nothing about his game screams "star" or "game changer" to me.

Tatum on the other hand has ridiculous potential, and IMHO he is the second best prospect in this draft.

Jackson is easily a more well-rounded player based off of what I've seen.

- Slightly better rebounder in college.
- Far superior passer
- Much better defender
- Better ball handler based off of what i've seen (has point-forward potential IMO)
- Much better athlete, Tatum is just average in this area.

Tatum's advantages are
- shooting (big advantage)
- isolation scoring ability
- younger age
- no off-court concerns
- Frame that could transition better to playing small-ball PF, if he packs on some muscle.

I'm not seeing any of what you are seeing in Jackson, to be completely honest.

1) First of all, from what I have seen Jackson is a pretty average ball handler.  His dribble moves are limited to a pretty basic crossover.  Tatum seems to have wider array of dribble moves and is actually a pretty capable ball handler for a wing, which has a lot to do with why he is such as quality isolation scorer.

2) While I agree Jackson is better passer then Tatum, I wouldn't agree that he is a "far surperior" passer.  Both are skilled passers for wing players.  Jackson a bit better passer yes, but I don't see any of this "point forward" potential that some people talk about.  People made the same claims about Aaron Gordon at the time too, and I never got that either.  Like Gordon Jackson is an average ball handler, and an above average passer.  He's nowhere near good enough as a passer or ball handler to play a point-forward role at an NBA level.  He's no Ben Simmons.   

3) Much better defender - that's debatable.  Jackson is a better and more consistent perimeter defender sure, but he is far less versatile.  With T-Rex arms, a slight frame and a skinny build, , he lacks the strength and length to even dream about defending NBA power forwards.  That means he's really limited to defending SGs and SFs.  But then his lack of ball handling means he really can't play the SG spot, so he'll pretty much be limited to playing the SF position at the NBA level.

Tatum is not as consistent defensively, but he's much more versatile.  His 6'11" wingspan and wider/stronger frame means he should have no problems defending NBA PF's once he bulks up  a bit, yet he still has the agility to defend guards and small forwards on the perimeter.  At 19 years of age his inconsistency on defence doesn't bother me too much - it's the potential that I'm interested in, and his defensive potential is extremely high. 

I also wouldn't consider Tatum an average athlete.  He's not an elite athlete, but he's still a very good one.  He's a very good leaper who runs the floor extremely well, and he's got good lateral mobility as well.  Maybe not quite the explosiveness of Jackson, but that's kinda a moot point since Jackson doesn't really have the skills to make the most of that explosiveness.

Jackson is a guy who I could very easily see busting out very easily.  His inability to defend NBA PFs and inability to handle the ball well enough to play SG, means he can really only play the SF spot - that's a big knock in a league that's all about positional versatility.  Throw in his nasty (and not in a good way) shooting form and you introduce yet another concern.  Put it all together and you basically have a 6'8" guy who can defend the perimeter, pass pretty well, score in transition, and not a whole lot else. 

At the NBA level, guys like that tend to become solid starters at best, role players at worst.  He's basically a Rondae-Hollis Jefferson / Michael Kidd Gilchrist type, and those guys rarely ever become stars at the NBA level.

Now some people might be ok with drafting a quality starter with a top 3 pick, but I'm not.  If I'm drafting in the top 3, then the way I see it anything less than an All-Star is a dissapointment...and Jackson does not have All-Star potential.  He's just another super-athlete with limited skills who will probably end up becoming a defensive role player.  Then there is the question of attitude - Jackson is known to be a bit of a head case, and often lets his passion get the better of him and frustrate him into making bad decisions.  He's prone to making stupid fouls, he whinges and complains too much, and he's and he's already had off court issues.  While I like guys who play with passion, you want to lean on the side of caution with guys like that.  Marcus Smart has already proven highly frustrating at times, and I'm not sure adding another of that type to this team is a wise idea. 

Tatum on the other hand, does.  He's a 6'8' wing who (if he bulks up sufficiently) could have the size, strength, length and agility to potentially defend all 5 positions on the court.  He is a top shelf isolation scorer (i.e. he can create his own offence) which is a key attribute that separates good NBA scorers from elite NBA scorers.  He has the versatility to score in every way you can imagine (much like Pierce / Carmelo) which makes him deadly on offence.  He can handle the ball, he can pass the ball, he can rebound.  There really is not a single category of skill in which Tatum doesn't have at least average-to-above-average capability. 

All this at 19 years of age.  His upside is through the roof - right up there with Fultz, and IMHO significantly above both Jackson and Ball.

Every year there are two or three guysn the top 5 who go on to be special players, and two or three guys in the top 5 who go on to become busts - or at the very least, decent but 'nothing special' players.  This year Ball and Jackson look like the dissapointment guys to me. 

Don't get me wrong I don't think Ball will be a bust, I just don't think he will be a franchise player - which is what you hope for from a projected top 2 pick.  I think he'll be a very good player though, kind of a Bradley Beal type. 

Fultz and Tatum I think will be legit stars.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2017, 10:39:23 PM by crimson_stallion »

Re: Jackson or Tatum: a decision I'm glad I don't have to make
« Reply #57 on: May 04, 2017, 12:10:56 AM »

Offline moiso

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7640
  • Tommy Points: 441
No brainer for me - Tatum by a mile.

He is a much more complete player (can handle the ball, pass the ball, post up, drive, shoot the three, defend, rebound, etc), a more talented scorer, and he's only 19 years old with excellent intangibles (IQ, attitude, work ethic, etc).

His upside is through the roof.

By comparison Jackson is just another 6'8" wing with a limited offensive game who looks primed to become yet another Michael-Kidd Gilchrist / Tyreke Evans type of guy.  I'm sure he'll be a solid player, but nothing about his game screams "star" or "game changer" to me.

Tatum on the other hand has ridiculous potential, and IMHO he is the second best prospect in this draft.

Jackson is easily a more well-rounded player based off of what I've seen.

- Slightly better rebounder in college.
- Far superior passer
- Much better defender
- Better ball handler based off of what i've seen (has point-forward potential IMO)
- Much better athlete, Tatum is just average in this area.

Tatum's advantages are
- shooting (big advantage)
- isolation scoring ability
- younger age
- no off-court concerns
- Frame that could transition better to playing small-ball PF, if he packs on some muscle.

I'm not seeing any of what you are seeing in Jackson, to be completely honest.

1) First of all, from what I have seen Jackson is a pretty average ball handler.  His dribble moves are limited to a pretty basic crossover.  Tatum seems to have wider array of dribble moves and is actually a pretty capable ball handler for a wing, which has a lot to do with why he is such as quality isolation scorer.

2) While I agree Jackson is better passer then Tatum, I wouldn't agree that he is a "far surperior" passer.  Both are skilled passers for wing players.  Jackson a bit better passer yes, but I don't see any of this "point forward" potential that some people talk about.  People made the same claims about Aaron Gordon at the time too, and I never got that either.  Like Gordon Jackson is an average ball handler, and an above average passer.  He's nowhere near good enough as a passer or ball handler to play a point-forward role at an NBA level.  He's no Ben Simmons.   

3) Much better defender - that's debatable.  Jackson is a better and more consistent perimeter defender sure, but he is far less versatile.  With T-Rex arms, a slight frame and a skinny build, , he lacks the strength and length to even dream about defending NBA power forwards.  That means he's really limited to defending SGs and SFs.  But then his lack of ball handling means he really can't play the SG spot, so he'll pretty much be limited to playing the SF position at the NBA level.

Tatum is not as consistent defensively, but he's much more versatile.  His 6'11" wingspan and wider/stronger frame means he should have no problems defending NBA PF's once he bulks up  a bit, yet he still has the agility to defend guards and small forwards on the perimeter.  At 19 years of age his inconsistency on defence doesn't bother me too much - it's the potential that I'm interested in, and his defensive potential is extremely high. 

I also wouldn't consider Tatum an average athlete.  He's not an elite athlete, but he's still a very good one.  He's a very good leaper who runs the floor extremely well, and he's got good lateral mobility as well.  Maybe not quite the explosiveness of Jackson, but that's kinda a moot point since Jackson doesn't really have the skills to make the most of that explosiveness.

Jackson is a guy who I could very easily see busting out very easily.  His inability to defend NBA PFs and inability to handle the ball well enough to play SG, means he can really only play the SF spot - that's a big knock in a league that's all about positional versatility.  Throw in his nasty (and not in a good way) shooting form and you introduce yet another concern.  Put it all together and you basically have a 6'8" guy who can defend the perimeter, pass pretty well, score in transition, and not a whole lot else. 

At the NBA level, guys like that tend to become solid starters at best, role players at worst.  He's basically a Rondae-Hollis Jefferson / Michael Kidd Gilchrist type, and those guys rarely ever become stars at the NBA level.

Now some people might be ok with drafting a quality starter with a top 3 pick, but I'm not.  If I'm drafting in the top 3, then the way I see it anything less than an All-Star is a dissapointment...and Jackson does not have All-Star potential.  He's just another super-athlete with limited skills who will probably end up becoming a defensive role player.  Then there is the question of attitude - Jackson is known to be a bit of a head case, and often lets his passion get the better of him and frustrate him into making bad decisions.  He's prone to making stupid fouls, he whinges and complains too much, and he's and he's already had off court issues.  While I like guys who play with passion, you want to lean on the side of caution with guys like that.  Marcus Smart has already proven highly frustrating at times, and I'm not sure adding another of that type to this team is a wise idea. 

Tatum on the other hand, does.  He's a 6'8' wing who (if he bulks up sufficiently) could have the size, strength, length and agility to potentially defend all 5 positions on the court.  He is a top shelf isolation scorer (i.e. he can create his own offence) which is a key attribute that separates good NBA scorers from elite NBA scorers.  He has the versatility to score in every way you can imagine (much like Pierce / Carmelo) which makes him deadly on offence.  He can handle the ball, he can pass the ball, he can rebound.  There really is not a single category of skill in which Tatum doesn't have at least average-to-above-average capability. 

All this at 19 years of age.  His upside is through the roof - right up there with Fultz, and IMHO significantly above both Jackson and Ball.

Every year there are two or three guysn the top 5 who go on to be special players, and two or three guys in the top 5 who go on to become busts - or at the very least, decent but 'nothing special' players.  This year Ball and Jackson look like the dissapointment guys to me. 

Don't get me wrong I don't think Ball will be a bust, I just don't think he will be a franchise player - which is what you hope for from a projected top 2 pick.  I think he'll be a very good player though, kind of a Bradley Beal type. 

Fultz and Tatum I think will be legit stars.
You think Tatum will be able to defend point guards?  And Jackson won't?  I think you have it backwards.

Re: Jackson or Tatum: a decision I'm glad I don't have to make
« Reply #58 on: May 04, 2017, 12:25:13 AM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
No brainer for me - Tatum by a mile.

He is a much more complete player (can handle the ball, pass the ball, post up, drive, shoot the three, defend, rebound, etc), a more talented scorer, and he's only 19 years old with excellent intangibles (IQ, attitude, work ethic, etc).

His upside is through the roof.

By comparison Jackson is just another 6'8" wing with a limited offensive game who looks primed to become yet another Michael-Kidd Gilchrist / Tyreke Evans type of guy.  I'm sure he'll be a solid player, but nothing about his game screams "star" or "game changer" to me.

Tatum on the other hand has ridiculous potential, and IMHO he is the second best prospect in this draft.

Jackson is easily a more well-rounded player based off of what I've seen.

- Slightly better rebounder in college.
- Far superior passer
- Much better defender
- Better ball handler based off of what i've seen (has point-forward potential IMO)
- Much better athlete, Tatum is just average in this area.

Tatum's advantages are
- shooting (big advantage)
- isolation scoring ability
- younger age
- no off-court concerns
- Frame that could transition better to playing small-ball PF, if he packs on some muscle.

I'm not seeing any of what you are seeing in Jackson, to be completely honest.

1) First of all, from what I have seen Jackson is a pretty average ball handler.  His dribble moves are limited to a pretty basic crossover.  Tatum seems to have wider array of dribble moves and is actually a pretty capable ball handler for a wing, which has a lot to do with why he is such as quality isolation scorer.

2) While I agree Jackson is better passer then Tatum, I wouldn't agree that he is a "far surperior" passer.  Both are skilled passers for wing players.  Jackson a bit better passer yes, but I don't see any of this "point forward" potential that some people talk about.  People made the same claims about Aaron Gordon at the time too, and I never got that either.  Like Gordon Jackson is an average ball handler, and an above average passer.  He's nowhere near good enough as a passer or ball handler to play a point-forward role at an NBA level.  He's no Ben Simmons.   

3) Much better defender - that's debatable.  Jackson is a better and more consistent perimeter defender sure, but he is far less versatile.  With T-Rex arms, a slight frame and a skinny build, , he lacks the strength and length to even dream about defending NBA power forwards.  That means he's really limited to defending SGs and SFs.  But then his lack of ball handling means he really can't play the SG spot, so he'll pretty much be limited to playing the SF position at the NBA level.

Tatum is not as consistent defensively, but he's much more versatile.  His 6'11" wingspan and wider/stronger frame means he should have no problems defending NBA PF's once he bulks up  a bit, yet he still has the agility to defend guards and small forwards on the perimeter.  At 19 years of age his inconsistency on defence doesn't bother me too much - it's the potential that I'm interested in, and his defensive potential is extremely high. 

I also wouldn't consider Tatum an average athlete.  He's not an elite athlete, but he's still a very good one.  He's a very good leaper who runs the floor extremely well, and he's got good lateral mobility as well.  Maybe not quite the explosiveness of Jackson, but that's kinda a moot point since Jackson doesn't really have the skills to make the most of that explosiveness.

Jackson is a guy who I could very easily see busting out very easily.  His inability to defend NBA PFs and inability to handle the ball well enough to play SG, means he can really only play the SF spot - that's a big knock in a league that's all about positional versatility.  Throw in his nasty (and not in a good way) shooting form and you introduce yet another concern.  Put it all together and you basically have a 6'8" guy who can defend the perimeter, pass pretty well, score in transition, and not a whole lot else. 

At the NBA level, guys like that tend to become solid starters at best, role players at worst.  He's basically a Rondae-Hollis Jefferson / Michael Kidd Gilchrist type, and those guys rarely ever become stars at the NBA level.

Now some people might be ok with drafting a quality starter with a top 3 pick, but I'm not.  If I'm drafting in the top 3, then the way I see it anything less than an All-Star is a dissapointment...and Jackson does not have All-Star potential.  He's just another super-athlete with limited skills who will probably end up becoming a defensive role player.  Then there is the question of attitude - Jackson is known to be a bit of a head case, and often lets his passion get the better of him and frustrate him into making bad decisions.  He's prone to making stupid fouls, he whinges and complains too much, and he's and he's already had off court issues.  While I like guys who play with passion, you want to lean on the side of caution with guys like that.  Marcus Smart has already proven highly frustrating at times, and I'm not sure adding another of that type to this team is a wise idea. 

Tatum on the other hand, does.  He's a 6'8' wing who (if he bulks up sufficiently) could have the size, strength, length and agility to potentially defend all 5 positions on the court.  He is a top shelf isolation scorer (i.e. he can create his own offence) which is a key attribute that separates good NBA scorers from elite NBA scorers.  He has the versatility to score in every way you can imagine (much like Pierce / Carmelo) which makes him deadly on offence.  He can handle the ball, he can pass the ball, he can rebound.  There really is not a single category of skill in which Tatum doesn't have at least average-to-above-average capability. 

All this at 19 years of age.  His upside is through the roof - right up there with Fultz, and IMHO significantly above both Jackson and Ball.

Every year there are two or three guysn the top 5 who go on to be special players, and two or three guys in the top 5 who go on to become busts - or at the very least, decent but 'nothing special' players.  This year Ball and Jackson look like the dissapointment guys to me. 

Don't get me wrong I don't think Ball will be a bust, I just don't think he will be a franchise player - which is what you hope for from a projected top 2 pick.  I think he'll be a very good player though, kind of a Bradley Beal type. 

Fultz and Tatum I think will be legit stars.
You think Tatum will be able to defend point guards?  And Jackson won't?  I think you have it backwards.

2-3 years from now I think Jackson will be able to play the SG and SF spots on defence, while also being able to switch and help on PGs.

2-3 years from now I think Tatum will be able to defend the SG, SF and PF spots on defence, while also being able to switch and help on PGs and Cs.

Offensively I can see Tatum playing the SF / PF spot, while I see Jackson being limited to the SF spot.

Tatum offers far more versatility.  He's basically a "jack of all trades" guy in that he can do a little bit of everything on the court.   
« Last Edit: May 04, 2017, 12:53:42 AM by crimson_stallion »

Re: Jackson or Tatum: a decision I'm glad I don't have to make
« Reply #59 on: May 04, 2017, 12:53:48 AM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
When we talk about 19 year old prospects we usually spend most of the conversation highlighting their youth as the main justification for the lack of skill/versatility/refinement in their game.  We tend to hear "but he's only 19, he will improve!". 

For Jabari Parker it was his defensive limitations because if his poor lateral mobility.  For Wiggins it was his jumper, which needed much work.  For Embiid there were questions about his basketball IQ.  For Simmons it was his jump shot.  For Ingram it was his puny frame.  For Jaylen Brown it was the general raw nature of his game. For Bender there were countless question marks.

19 year old guys tend to always have glaring holes in their game, and you tend to sit there trying to explain that it's ok, because they are only 19 and will figure it out.

Tatum is incredibly rare in that he is a 19 year old who has no major weakness.  None at all.  He can shoot from midrange, he can shoot from three. He has a post game.  He can handle the ball and pass the ball.  He can rebound.  He can defend the perimeter.  He can block shots.  He can score in transition.  He can attack the basket.  He can play above the rim.  He can run the floor, he can move well laterally, he can jump, he has height, he has length, he has a solid frame to build on.  Professional attitude and strong work ethic. 

There are things you can criticise and things he can improve at of course, that is true for any prospect.  But there is no huge glaring hole or red flag.  He's a complete player at 19 years old, and that is seriously impressive.

Jackson by comparison has a number of red flags:

- His inability to create offence is a worry, because it leaves question marks as to whether he can ever be a #1 option on offence. 

- His lack of length and petite frame are concerns, because they mean he might never have the length or muscle to defend an NBA PF.

- The broken form on hi jumper is a concern.  That low/slow release means he might not be able to get shots off against NBA defence and might get constantly stripped of the ball.

- His attitude is a concern.  Will he be able to avoid foul trouble?  Will he be able to avoid getting on the bad side of officials?  Will he be able to stay away from off-court problems? 

There are a number of red flags for Jackson, and to add to it he is a year older then Tatum.

Marcus Smart is a guy who impacts games with his defence and energy, but he frustrates me with his offensive limitations, his tendency to lose composure and commit stupid fouls, and his hot-headed antics.  He's a great player to have, but he isn't well rounded enough to likely ever become a star - and at #6 I'm ok with that.

Jackson reminds me way too much of Marcus Smart in all of the above regards, and I'm not ok with taking a Marcus Smart type of player with a top 3 pick.  At that point in the draft I'm looking for a star, not a fringe starter.