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.
1. Tatum is a better ball handler in isolation. I'll take Jackson in the open court or any situation where he gets a head of steam.
2. Tatum may be a good passer, but he tends to get major tunnel vision while trying to score, which leads to stupid shots & turnovers. Jackson is great at finding the open man, especially in transition.
3. If Jackson didn't have all-star potential he wouldn't be a consensus top 4 pick in this draft.
4. He's 6'8, I doubt he'll play much SG either way. His "lack of ball handling" shouldn't effect that. Bradley is a pretty bad ball handler and he's been fine at SG for us (he has improved some this year).
5. Jackson plays just as hard defensively as he does offensively. Tatum hasn't shown me much on that end yet, and you can't teach the kind of passion that guys like Marcus Smart/AB have. Aside from effort, Jackson is much quicker than Tatum and will be able to stay in front of guards. Also a solid shot blocker for his position.
6. Yes he lets his emotions get to him sometimes, but that's better than the alternative. This is a team full of passionate/gritty players, Jackson could fit right in imo.
Poll
Topic: Jackson or Tatum: a decision I'm glad I don't have to make (Read 8822 times)